LIBRARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. 
 
 RECEIVED BY EXCHANGE 
 
 Class 
 
The Political Theories 
 of Martin Luther 
 
 By 
 
 Luther Hess Waring, Ph.D. 
 
 Author of " Sundays in London," "The Law and the Gospel 
 of Labor," etc. 
 
 G. P. Putnam's Sons 
 
 New York and London 
 fmicfcerbocfcer press 
 1910 
 

 COPYRIGHT, 1910 
 
 BY 
 LUTHER HESS WARING 
 
 Ube fmfcfeerbocfter ftrees. flew Kotft 
 
INTRODUCTORY NOTE 
 
 THIS study was undertaken in the preparation 
 of a thesis on Martin Luther's Political 
 Reforms of Germany in part fulfilment of the work 
 required by the George Washington University 
 for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. The 
 field proved so inviting and so important that 
 it has led to a work of larger proportions than 
 originally anticipated, and is given to the world 
 in the hope that it may be of service in throwing 
 some additional light on the political theories 
 of the great religious reformer of the sixteenth 
 century and on the credit that belongs to him 
 as a forerunner of the modern theory of the state. 
 
 LUTHER HESS WARING. 
 
 WASHINGTON, D. C., 1910. 
 
 111 
 
 204431 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 CHAPTER PAGE 
 
 I. HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION i 
 
 II. THE GERMANY OF LUTHER'S DAY . 34 
 
 III. THE NATURE, NECESSITY, AND ORIGIN 
 
 OF THE STATE 61 
 
 IV. THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATE: (A) 
 
 VIEWED INTERNALLY ... 86 
 
 V. THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATE: (B) 
 
 VIEWED EXTERNALLY . . .107 
 
 VI. THE RIGHT OF REFORM AND REVOLU- 
 TION 135 
 
 VII. THE OBJECTS OF THE STATE . . 163 
 VIII. THE FUNCTIONS OF THE STATE . .185 
 
 IX. THE LIMITS OF THE STATE . . . 232 
 
 v 
 
vi Contents 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 PAGE 
 
 X. AN ESTIMATE OF LUTHER'S PLACE IN THE 
 HISTORY OF THE THEORY OF THE 
 STATE 262 
 
 APPENDIX: BIBLIOGRAPHY .... 283 
 INDEX 291 
 
The Political Theories of Martin 
 Luther 
 
THE POLITICAL 
 THEORIES OF MARTIN LUTHER 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 
 HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION i 
 
 A RISTOTLE, in a sense the founder of political 
 -* science, 2 declares that man is by nature 
 a political animal 3 and that the state is natural 
 and necessary to him. It comes into being for 
 the sake of mere life, but it continues to exist 
 for the sake of the good life. It has no more 
 important function than that of securing intel- 
 lectual culture and physical training to its youth. 
 Whether the sovereign power reside in one, in 
 the few, or in the many, the true end of the state 
 
 1 A bibliography of the important works consulted and 
 cited in this study is given in the Appendix. 
 
 2 Aristotle: Politics, i., 2, iii., 7, viii., i. Bluntschli: The 
 Theory of the State, p. 35. Dunning: Political Theories 
 Ancient and Medieval, p. 49 et seq. Pollock: An Introduction 
 to the History of the Science of Politics, p. 1 j et seq. 
 
 3 Avdpuiros 0&m TroXtTtKdv ffiov Politics, i., 2. 
 
 i 
 
2 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 is the perfection of all its members. Government 
 conducted in the exclusive interest of any part, 
 though a majority of its citizens, is a perversion. 
 The law is superior to the individual man, and 
 its sovereignty is above every form of personal 
 sovereignty. 
 
 The ancient state, in general, was everything. 
 It included and interfered with all the relations 
 in life. Without it, the citizen was nothing, and 
 he had no individual freedom. The idea of the 
 state embraced his entire life "in community, 
 in religion and law, morals and art, culture and 
 science." 1 Religion and government, or church 
 and state, were identical, and continued so in 
 theory and generally in fact to the time of 
 Constantine. 2 
 
 In the history of Rome there was a time when 
 the word of Caesar was the law and the worship 
 of Caesar was the religion of the world. As Ponti- 
 fex Maximus he was the high priest of the national 
 religion. He held control of both church and 
 state in his own person. Indeed, in a large sense, 
 he was the state, and he was the church. 
 
 Identity of worship, among ancient civilised peo- 
 ples, constituted the unity of the state. Through- 
 out antiquity the essence of religion was associated 
 
 . i Bluntschli: The Theory of the State, p. 56. 
 * Prall: The State and the Church, p. 151. 
 
Historical Introduction 3 
 
 with nationality, and the religious community 
 was contained in the political community of the 
 state. 1 This identity of two great institutions 
 so generally distinct in modern life, this fusion 
 and confusion of church and state, arose from 
 the common germ from which they both sprang, 
 i.e., the family. 2 
 
 Aristotle wrote: "The care of the public sacri- 
 fices of the city belongs, according to religious cus- 
 tom, not to special priests, but to those men who 
 derive their dignity from the hearth, and who in 
 one place are called kings, in another prytanes, and 
 in a third archons." 3 The sacerdotal character 
 of primitive royalty is clearly shown by ancient 
 writers. The-office of king and priest was united 
 in one. "Just as in the family the authority 
 was inherent in the priesthood, and the father, 
 as head of the domestic worship, was at the same 
 time judge and master, so the high priest of 
 the city was at the same time its political chief. 
 . . . From the fact that religion had so great a 
 part in the government, in the courts, and in war, 
 it necessarily followed that the priest was at the 
 same time magistrate, judge, and military chief. 
 . . . This royalty, semi-religious, semi-political, 
 
 1 Geffcken: Church and State, i., 37, 59. 
 
 2 Blackie: What does History Teach, p. 68. 
 Aristotle: Politics, vii., 5, n (vi., 8). 
 
4 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 was established in all cities, from their foundation, 
 without effort on the part of the kings, without 
 resistance on the part of the subjects." 1 
 
 The Romans gave a more definite form to law, 
 as distinguished from morality, and thus limited 
 the jurisdiction or the sphere of the state. 
 Furthermore, they declared the will of the people 
 to be the source of all law. 2 Great as they were 
 as administrators and lawgivers, they have left 
 us nothing of importance in the history of political 
 theory. 3 
 
 With the introduction and early extension of 
 Christianity, whose Founder and early followers 
 were persecuted to the death by various govern- 
 ments of their day, another limitation was placed 
 upon the sphere of the state. The church as an 
 organisation was viewed and kept separate and 
 distinct from the state. 4 "The words of Christ, 
 'My kingdom is not of this world,' mark a crisis 
 in history, the birth of a new movement which was 
 
 * Coulanges: The Ancient City, pp. 235-237. 
 
 2 Bluntschli: The Theory of the State, p. 38. 
 
 3 Pollock: An Introduction to the History of the Science 
 of Politics, pp. 31, 33. Cicero asserts that the state is the 
 highest product of human power, and that there is nothing 
 in which human excellence comes nearer the will of the gods 
 than in the founding and maintenance of states. Cicero: 
 De Repub., i., 7. Bluntschli: The Theory of the State, p. 37. 
 
 * Prall: The State and the Church, p. 151. 
 
Historical Introduction 5 
 
 to assign to each of the two powers, the state as 
 well as the religious community, their separate 
 province." 1 The entire religious life of the com- 
 munity was felt to be essentially independent 
 of the state, although not altogether withdrawn 
 from its care and influence, and the state was 
 limited to the field of politics and law. The 
 dualism of church and state became most marked. 2 
 The historian Gibbon viewed the church, as it 
 became during Constantine's reign and remained 
 for years after his death, as a republic or state 
 within the state ; but it was rather a superordinated 
 genus embracing all the civil functions of the state. 
 For a period of fifteen hundred years, one great 
 question that more than any other in this field 
 of government clamoured for a solution was the 
 relation that properly exists between these two 
 great institutions, the church and the state. 
 "The whole life and character of western Christen- 
 dom consists of the incessant action and counter- 
 action of church and state. " 3 
 
 Galerius, as early as 311 A.D., issued an edict, 
 which also bears the names of Constantine and 
 Licinius, declaring paganism to be the religion 
 of the state, but tolerating Christianity, provided 
 
 1 Geffcken: Church and State, i., 60. 
 
 2 Bluntschli: The Theory of the State, p. 39.. 
 
 3 Ranke: History of the Reformation in Germany, i., 4. 
 
6 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 its adherents took no action against the established 
 laws, religion, and government of the state. 1 Two 
 years later, Constantine, Emperor of the West, 
 and Licinius, Master of the East, issued the 
 famous Edict of Milan, 2 granting absolute freedom 
 of worship, giving full and free power to the Chris- 
 tians of exercising their own religion. The same 
 free and unrestricted liberty of worship, according 
 to the dictates of the individual conscience and 
 reason, with a view to peace, was likewise con- 
 ceded to all others as to their own religion or 
 observance, that each might have the liberty 
 of the worship he preferred. Church property 
 that had been confiscated or sold from the Chris- 
 tian communities was ordered to be at once 
 restored, without consideration. Neander declares 
 that this new law implied the introduction of a 
 universal and unconditional religious freedom 
 and liberty of conscience a thing, in fact, wholly 
 new. 3 In issuing this edict, Constantine expresses 
 the hope that in granting this liberty he may have 
 Heaven's blessing; but there is nothing in the 
 
 1 Innes: Church and State, pp. 21-23. Thatcher: The 
 Ideas that have Influenced Civilization, iv., 17. Geffcken: 
 Church and State, i., 90. 
 
 2 Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History, Book x., Chap. v. 
 Innes: Church and State, pp. 23-25. Thatcher: The Ideas 
 that have Influenced Civilization, iv., 19. 
 
 3 Innes: Church and State, p. 25. 
 
Historical Introduction 7 
 
 language of the document showing any recognition 
 of the right of the individual to freedom of con- 
 science or liberty of worship. Tertullian, writing 
 in the preceding century, asserted that ' ' the rights 
 of man and the law of nature give every one' the 
 power of worshipping as he thinks proper; and 
 the religion of one man neither injures nor bene- 
 fits another. Force is indeed foreign to religion." 1 
 
 Constantine's Edict of Toleration of 323 A.D. 
 recognised freedom of conscience and of worship. 
 He summoned church councils to settle questions 
 of religious doctrine, and published their pro- 
 ceedings. He banished dissenting ecclesiastics, 
 prohibited assemblies of heretics, and confiscated 
 their houses of worship. He paid salaries to 
 the Christian clergy from the imperial treasury 
 and bestowed certain judicial functions on bish- 
 ops. 2 It is asserted that after he made Con- 
 stantinople his capital, he prohibited immoral 
 forms of pagan worship and their ordinary public 
 forms of sacrifice, but this has not been definitely 
 established. 
 
 During Constantine's reign another voice is 
 heard in behalf of religious liberty. Lactantius, 
 tutor to the Emperor's son and a Christian convert, 
 asserted: "Religion cannot be compelled; it is by 
 
 1 Innes: Church and State, pp. 30, 31. 
 
 2 Sheldon : History of Christian Doctrine, i. 173. 
 
8 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 words rather than wounds that you must bend 
 the will. Nothing is so much a matter of free 
 will as religion. Our God is the God of all, 
 whether they will it or no; but we do not desire 
 that any one should be compelled to worship 
 Him. . . . Religion is the one region in which 
 liberty has fixed its domicile and home." 1 In 
 353 Constantius ordered all heathen temples 
 closed, and declared further: "We will that all 
 abstain from sacrifices: if any be found doing 
 otherwise, let him be slain with the sword." 2 
 
 It did not require centuries, after the removal of 
 the seat of imperial government from the Tiber 
 to the Bosphorus, for the old Roman Empire, 
 as a unit, to disappear. The Bishop of Rome 
 naturally acquired leadership in the West. He 
 defended that city and its people against the 
 northern barbarians, but he also won these same 
 barbarians to Christianity. The universal tem- 
 poral dominion of the old empire passed away, 
 both in theory and in fact, but it was superseded 
 by the idea of universal spiritual dominion. As 
 early as the end of the fifth century, Bishop Gela- 
 sius (492-496) declared that "the See of St. Peter 
 has the right to decide and judge in all matters 
 concerning the faith; no .one dare criticise its judg- 
 
 * Quoted by Innes: Church and State, p. 31. 
 2 Ibid., p. 33. 
 
Historical Introduction 9 
 
 ment; as the canons determine that persons from 
 all parts of the world can appeal to it, no one, on 
 the other hand, can appeal against it." 1 "It is 
 just at the moment when the Roman Empire is 
 breaking up and disappearing/* says Guizot, 
 "that the Christian church gathers itself up and 
 takes its definite form. Political unity perishes, 
 religious unity emerges." 2 
 
 The year 754 was a turning point in the relation 
 of church and state in Western and Southern 
 Europe. Pippin, King of the Franks, accepting 
 a proposal of the Pope, overthrew the Lombards, 
 who were pressing the eternal city, and presented 
 Rome and the surrounding territory to the Pope. 3 
 Twenty years later, his son Charles the Great, 
 better known as Charlemagne, assumed the iron 
 crown and ruled as protector of Rome for a score 
 of years. He was nominally, however, under 
 the power of the Roman Emperor until the close 
 
 1 Geffcken: Church and State, i., 147. 
 
 2 See Kelly: Evolution and Effort, p. 108. 
 
 3 "Pippin had founded the temporal power of the popes 
 in 754, by transferring the cities of the Exarchy to Pope 
 Stephen II, who already exercised a temporal poTver in 
 Rome. The worldly sovereignty grew gradually from this 
 basis. Pippin greatly strengthened the influence of the 
 church by gifts of land, by increasing the privileges of the 
 priesthood, and by allowing the ecclesiastical synods, in 
 many cases, to interfere in matters of civil government." 
 Schoenfeld: German Historical Prose, p. 35, note 2. 
 
io Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 of that century. On Christmas day, in the year 
 800, the Pope, in St. Peter's at Rome, placed on 
 Charlemagne's head the crown of the Caesars, 
 and he was acclaimed as "Charles Augustus, 
 Emperor, crowned of God." 
 
 The capitulary of Charlemagne of 802 has been 
 well termed, in a certain sense, the foundation 
 charter of that Holy Roman Empire that con- 
 tinued for more than a thousand years. 1 Al- 
 though the ideals and principles there set forth 
 were never fully realised, they nevertheless set 
 forth functions and objects of civil government 
 worthy of note. The Emperor chose the most 
 prudent and the wisest of his nobles to make 
 diligent inquiry and report to him where any 
 provisions were contained in the law otherwise 
 than according to Christian right and justice, 
 that he might better it, and to fully administer 
 law and justice according to the will and the fear 
 of God, whether the matter concerned the church, 
 or the poor, or wards and widows, or the whole 
 people. Where these imperial appointees, with the 
 assistance of the counts of the provinces, found 
 themselves unable to adjust a difficulty or render 
 justice with regard to it, they were directed to 
 refer it, with their reports, to the Emperor's 
 court. All the people of the empire were exhorted 
 
 Until 1806. 
 
Historical Introduction n 
 
 to live together according to the precept of God, 
 in a just manner, under just judgment, in mutual 
 charity and perfect peace. Every male citizen, 
 layman and ecclesiastic alike, down to those 
 under twelve years of age, was required to take 
 the oath of allegiance to the Emperor. Charle- 
 magne declared that he himself, after God and 
 His saints, had been constituted the protector 
 and defender of the holy churches of God, of 
 widows, of orphans, and of strangers. He com- 
 manded that judges should judge justly, according 
 to the written law, and not according to their 
 own judgment. 1 This first great Emperor of the 
 new regime brought together under his author- 
 ity and government the territory now included 
 in Germany, Hungary, Switzerland, France, Bel- 
 gium, and all of Italy except the southern 
 part. 2 
 
 The old had passed away. There was now an 
 Emperor of the West and an Emperor of the 
 East. There was a Church of the West and a 
 Church of the East. For the purposes of this 
 study we turn our attention exclusively to the 
 West. Charlemagne here regulated by his capitu- 
 laries the administration and discipline of the 
 
 1 Mon. Germ. Hist., LL. II., pp. 91-99. Henderson: Select 
 Historical Documents of the Middle Ages, p. 189 et seq. 
 
 2 Wilson: The State, p. 181. 
 
12 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 Church, 1 interfering even in questions of doctrine. 
 He convoked synods, and they in turn acknow- 
 ledged his ecclesiastical supremacy and presented 
 their decrees for his confirmation. He appointed 
 and deposed bishops. Pope Eugene II and the 
 Romans were compelled to promise that no pope 
 should receive consecration in future until he 
 had taken, before the imperial ambassador, the 
 oath of allegiance to the Emperor as his lord and 
 suzerain. 
 
 In this continental contest for supremacy, waged 
 for centuries, between the papal power on the one 
 hand and various civil governments on the other 
 hand, the so-called pseudo-decretals of Isidore 2 
 exerted a far-reaching influence. Originating 
 probably not in Rome but certainly on behalf 
 of Rome, they were designed to strengthen the 
 hands of the pope against the civil power by aim- 
 ing to prove that all bishops derive their authority 
 from the Bishop of Rome, who holds his own 
 immediately from Christ. They belong to the 
 late Carlovingian period, 3 and aimed at no less 
 a project than the overthrow of the existing con- 
 
 Geffcken: Church and State, i., 176. Prall: The State 
 and the Church, p. 158. 
 
 2 D'Aubigne: History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth 
 Century, i., 45. 
 
 a Schoenfeld: German Historical Prose, p. 67, note 2. 
 
Historical Introduction 13 
 
 stitution of the church, which everywhere still 
 essentially rested on the authority of the metro- 
 politan. They sought to place the entire church 
 in immediate subjection to the pope of Rome, 
 and to establish a unity of the spiritual power, 
 which would lead to its emancipation from the 
 temporal. 1 
 
 Centuries before, St. Augustine's De Civitate Dei 
 had presented the civitas terrena (kingdom or city 
 of the world) in contrast with the civitas Dei (king- 
 dom or city of God) ; but the Roman canonists 
 transformed his glorious vision of the kingdom of 
 God into that kingdom of the world which he rep- 
 robated ; and his ideal kingdom of God became a 
 temporal kingdom, with all the accompaniments 
 of conquest, fraud, and violence which, according 
 to the great theologians of the West, naturally 
 belonged to such an organisation. Augustine's 
 ideal city, or kingdom of God, continued for cen- 
 turies, during the earlier Middle Ages, to attract 
 the attention and delight the heart of the faith- 
 ful, as they contemplated the visible ecclesiastical 
 Empire of Rome. 2 "No good Catholic Christian 
 doubted that in spiritual things the clergy were 
 the divinely-appointed superiors of the laity, that 
 this power proceeded from the right of the priests 
 
 1 Ranke: History of the Reformation in Germany, i., 9. 
 
 2 Lindsay: A History of the Reformation, i., 3. 
 
14 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 to celebrate the sacraments, that the pope was 
 the real possessor of this power, and was far 
 superior to all secular authority. The question, 
 however, as to the pope's power to rule was 
 certainly a subject of controversy. " 1 
 
 As early as the year 829, episcopal utterances 
 about church and state asserted the principle 
 universalis sancta ecclesia Dei unum corpus mani- 
 feste esse credatur eiusque caput Christus; and from 
 this time forward mankind is commonly presented 
 as one body with a God-willed spiritual and tem- 
 poral constitution. 2 It was this claim on the 
 part of the Roman Church and its acceptance 
 by the world that forced Emperor Henry IV to 
 Canossa, there to stand for three days outside 
 the palace, barefoot, in the depth of winter, 3 
 until Pope Gregory VII chose to receive and 
 grudgingly pardon him. This pope declared 
 the clergy independent of the civil power and 
 without its jurisdiction. They were to pay taxes 
 to the church only, and were subject to no author- 
 ity but that of the pope. Gregory was the first 
 to renew the teaching of St. Augustine that the 
 temporal power is the work of sin and the devil. 
 
 Harnack: History of Dogma, vi., 132, note. 
 
 2 Gierke: Political Theories of the Middle Age, p. 103. 
 
 3 Prescott : Robertson's History of the Reign of the Emperor 
 Charles V, i., 205. 
 
Historical Introduction 15 
 
 He asserted the right of papal appointment of 
 kaisers and kings, and charged all men, whom he 
 had confirmed in regia dignitate, to obey him. 
 The bearer of the keys must judge temporal 
 rulers, but he himself can be judged by none. 1 
 In the collection of capitularies of Benedictus 
 Levita, the principle is prominently set forth 
 that no constitution in the world is of any force 
 or validity against the decisions of the popes 
 of Rome. Kings acting in opposition to this 
 principle are threatened with divine punishment. 2 
 One of the documents fpund among the pseudo- 
 Isidorian decretals, known as the Constantine 
 Donation, 3 purports to be a grant from Constantine 
 to the pope of imperial honours, and of the primacy 
 over Ant ioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Jeru- 
 salem, as also over all other churches in the world. 
 It makes him the chief judge of the clergy, and 
 tenders him the imperial diadem, granting him 
 dominion over all Italy, including Rome, though 
 under the terms employed Italia sen occiden- 
 talium regionum, later popes claimed nothing 
 
 1 Gierke: Political Theories of the Middle Age, pp. 109, 117. 
 Stubbs: Constitutional History of England, iii., 291, 292. 
 Sidgwick: The Development of European Polity, p. 226 et seq. 
 
 2 Benedicti Capitularia, lib. ii., p. 322, and lib. iii., p. 346. 
 Ranker History of the Reformation in Germany, i., u. 
 
 3 Henderson: Select Historical Documents of the Middle 
 Ages, pp. 269, 270, 319. 
 
1 6 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 less than all Western Europe. Though the 
 authenticity of this document was questioned, 
 and occasionally denied, even in the Middle Ages, 
 it was received into various collections of canon 
 law. It was seriously attacked, however, in the 
 fifteenth century and its falseness finally recog- 
 nised by historians generally. Adrian IV relied 
 on it, according to John of Salisbury, in asseivting 
 the right to dispose of Ireland in 1155. In the 
 bull conferring upon Henry II of England the 
 right to conquer Ireland, Adrian says 1 : " There 
 is indeed no doubt, as thy Highness doth 
 also acknowledge, that Ireland and all other 
 islands which Christ the Sun of Righteousness 
 has illumined, and which have received the doc- 
 trines of the Christian faith, belong to the juris- 
 diction of St. Peter and of the Holy Roman 
 Church." He gives his assent to the king's 
 petition, and expresses his pleasure that the king, 
 "for the enlargement of the bounds of the church, 
 for the restraint of vice, for the correction of 
 morals and the introduction of virtues, for the 
 advancement of the Christian religion," should 
 enter that island. It is further provided that 
 
 1 Henderson: Select Historical Documents of the Middle 
 Ages, pp. 10, ii. Berington: The History of the Reign of 
 Henry II, i., 306, 307. Scholars are not fully agreed as to 
 the genuineness of this papal bull. 
 
Historical Introduction 17 
 
 the rights of the church remain inviolate and 
 entire; and there is reserved to St. Peter and the 
 Holy Roman Church the annual pension of one 
 penny from each and every house on the island. 
 
 In the beginning of the following century, at 
 a time when Aragon and Hungary were papal 
 fiefs and the Latin East was entirely subject to 
 the Pope, King John of England, in 1213, after 
 a losing struggle with Pope Innocent, laid his 
 realm at the feet of the Pope's legate, to receive 
 it back as a fief from Rome. In his grant 
 he decrees the concession of the kingdoms of 
 England and Ireland with all their "rights and 
 appurtenances" to God and His holy Apostles, 
 Peter and Paul, and to our mother the Holy 
 Roman Church, and to our Lord Pope Innocent 
 and to his Catholic successors, for the remission 
 of our sins and of those of our whole race, as well 
 for the living as for the dead; and now receiving 
 and holding them, as it were a vassal, from God 
 and the Roman Church, we perform and swear 
 fealty for them to him our aforesaid Lord Pope 
 Innocent, and his Catholic successors and the 
 Roman Church. The concession further declares 
 that the Roman Church shall receive annually, 
 for all the service and customs which ought to 
 be rendered it, saving in all things the penny of 
 St. Peter, a thousand marks sterling, seven hun- 
 
1 8 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 dred namely for the kingdom of England and 
 three hundred for the kingdom of Ireland. The 
 king asserts that the transfer was not induced 
 by force or compelled by fear, but of his own good 
 and spontaneous will and by the common counsel 
 of his barons. 1 Though there was a sense of 
 national shame in later ages over this settlement 
 of the difficulties in which the king and the king- 
 dom were involved, "we see little trace of such 
 a feeling in the contemporary accounts of the 
 time." 2 
 
 Having deposed one emperor and claiming the 
 right to appoint his successor, Innocent IV wrote 
 to the German princes in 1246: "We command 
 you, since our beloved son, the Landgrave of 
 Thuringia, is ready to take upon himself the office 
 of emperor, that you proceed to elect him 
 unanimously without delay." 3 
 
 There are two writers of this period, of lasting 
 renown, to whom reference must be made, the 
 one a defender of the papal claims and the other 
 an opponent. Thomas Aquinas sought to show 
 that submission to the Roman pontiff is necessary 
 for every human being. He asserted that under 
 
 Henderson: Select Historical Documents of the Middle 
 Ages, pp. 3 59, 430. Stubbs : Constitutional History of England, 
 i., 522. 
 
 2 Green: A Short History of the English People, i., 236. 
 
 3 Ranke: History of the Reformation in Germany, i., 40. 
 
Historical Introduction 19 
 
 the teachings of the New Testament, the king 
 is subject to the priest in so far that if a king 
 prove to be a heretic or a schismatic, the pope 
 has a right to deprive him of all royal authority 
 by releasing his subjects from their allegiance. 1 
 Aquinas teaches the principle of unity before 
 plurality, and employs the maxim omnis multitude 
 derivatur ab uno. He sees the "prototypes of the 
 state in the world with its one God, in the micro- 
 cosm of man with its single soul, in the unifying 
 principle which prevails among the powers of 
 the soul, and which prevails also in the natural 
 body and in the animal kingdom." The church 
 has the care of the ultimate end; civil rulers have 
 merely the care of antecedent ends. 2 
 
 Dante holds the principle of unity to be the 
 source of all good; and bases his demand for a 
 single rule in every whole on the types of an 
 ordinatio ad unum, as found in the world- whole, 
 among the heavenly bodies, and everywhere on 
 earth. 3 To accomplish the common purposes 
 
 1 Compare his Opuscula contra errores Gracorum; De 
 regimine principum. Lindsay : A History of the Reformation, 
 i., 4. 
 
 2 Gierke: Political Theories of the Middle Age, pp. 101, in. 
 See De regimine principum, i., 2, 3, 12, 14; alsoSumma contra 
 gentil., iii., q. 81. 
 
 3 Dante: Monarchia, i., 5-16. Gierke: Political Theories 
 of the Middle Age, p. 102. 
 
v/ 
 
 20 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 of the race, nothing but a world empire will suffice. 
 He argued that a universal monarch, with no 
 rival to fear and no further ambition to satisfy, 
 could have no motive for ruling otherwise than 
 wisely and just. He expressly adopted Aristotle's 
 doctrine that the merit of a government must be 
 gauged by its promotion of the welfare of all 
 its subjects. The aim of the rightful common- 
 wealth is liberty, i. e., that men may live for their 
 own sake. Citizens are not for the sake of the 
 consuls; a nation is not for the king. On the con- 
 trary, the consuls are for the sake of the citizens 
 and the king is for the sake of the nation. The 
 state is not subordinate to laws, but laws to the 
 state. The monarch is to be deemed the servant 
 of all. 1 The monarch Dante had in mind, it must 
 be noted, is not a world despot, but a ruler set 
 over the princes of various states to keep the 
 peace between them. He puts imperial sover- 
 eignty in the place of papal supremacy. 2 
 
 Pope Boniface, in 1296, issued the bull Clericis 
 Laicos, in which he declares antiquity teaches 
 us that laymen are in a high degree hostile to 
 the clergy, a fact further established "by the 
 experiences of the present times," referring here 
 
 1 Pollock: An Introduction to the History of the Science 
 of Politics, pp. 37, 38. 
 
 2 Bullowa: The History of the Theory of Sovereignty, p. 21. 
 
Historical Introduction 21 
 
 to the taxes imposed upon the clergy of France 
 and England by their respective kings. The Pope 
 says they do not have the prudence to consider 
 that all jurisdiction is denied them over the clergy 
 over both the persons and the property of 
 ecclesiastics. He therefore decrees that any 
 prelates or ecclesiastics, monastic or secular, 
 who may pay or agree to pay to laymen any such 
 levies or taxes, under whatever name or pretence, 
 without permission of the Apostolic Chair; and 
 any emperors, kings, princes, barons, or other per- 
 sons, by whatever name called, wherever situated, 
 who shall impose or receive such payments or take 
 any action concerning them, publicly or secretly, 
 without such permission, shall incur, by the act 
 itself, the sentence of excommunication. Corpora- 
 tions guilty in these matters are placed under the 
 ecclesiastical interdict. Prelates and all ecclesias- 
 tics acquiescing in any such demands, herein 
 forbidden, are subject to deposition and excom- 
 munication. 1 The King of England obeyed this 
 mandate, but the King of France did not. There- 
 upon began a conflict that led eventually and 
 indirectly to the Babylonian Captivity. 
 
 1 Henderson: Select Historical Documents of the Middle 
 Ages, pp. 359, 432 et seq. Robinson: Translations and 
 Reprints from the Original Sources of European History, iii., 
 6, pp. 23-25. 
 
22 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 / Towards the close of this struggle between 
 Boniface VIII and Philip, the pope issued another 
 bull, known as the Unam Sanctam, 1 published 
 in 1302, in which he declared that there is neither 
 salvation nor remission of sins outside of the one 
 Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Lord 
 says in John that there is one fold, one shepherd, 
 and one only. We are told by the word of the 
 Gospel that in this His fold there are two swords 
 a spiritual and a temporal. Surely he who 
 denies that the temporal sword is in the power of 
 Peter wrongly interprets the word of the Lord 
 when He says : ' * Put up thy sword in its scabbard. " 
 Both swords, the spiritual and the material, 
 therefore, are in the power of the church, the one, 
 indeed, to be wielded for the church, the other 
 by the church: the one by the hand of the priest, 
 the other by the hand of kings and knights, but 
 at the will and sufferance of the priest. One 
 sword, moreover, ought to be under the other, 
 and the temporal authority subject to the spirit- 
 ual. For when the Apostle says, "There is no 
 power but of God, and the powers that are of 
 God are ordained," they would not be ordained 
 
 i Henderson: Select Historical Documents of the Middle 
 Ages, pp. 359, 435. Robinson: Translations and Reprints 
 from the Original Sources of European History, iii., 6, pp. 
 20-23. 
 
Historical Introduction 23 
 
 unless sword were under sword and the lesser 
 one, as it were, were led by the other to great 
 deeds. That the spiritual exceeds any earthly 
 power in dignity and nobility we ought the more 
 openly to confess, as spiritual interests excel 
 temporal ones in importance. We see this, too, 
 in the giving of tithes, in the benediction and the 
 sanctification; from the recognition of this power 
 and the control of these same things. For, 
 the truth bearing witness, it is for the spiritual 
 power to establish the earthly power and judge 
 it, if it be not good. The spiritual man judges 
 in all things, but he himself is judged by no one. 
 Indeed, we declare, announce and define that it is 
 altogether necessary to salvation for every human 
 creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. 
 
 Alvarius Pelagius, writing from 1330 to 1340, 
 maintained that as the church, which is cos- 
 mopolis, can give, by baptism, and take away 
 the right of citizenship, so she has the right 
 to distribute offices among her citizens. The 
 priestly acts of sacerdotal consecration and 
 unction, which first give temporal authority over 
 God's people, must be regarded as approval and 
 confirmation. 1 
 
 Pope John XXII, of this same period, claimed 
 the right of looking into the merits of an emperor- 
 
 1 Gierke: Political Theories of the Middle Age, p. 113. 
 
24 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 elect, and of rejecting him if he saw proper. 
 In the case of a disputed election, he asserted 
 the right to administer the government himself 
 until the contest should be settled. 1 In connection 
 with this dispute between Louis the Bavarian 
 and the pope one of the last great mediaeval 
 struggles between the empire and the papacy 
 and as a reply to these papal claims, the German 
 princes, assembled in the Imperial Diet held at 
 Frankfort in 1338, passed the famous Licet Juris. 2 
 In this decree, the electors stoutly and unequivo- 
 cally declare the independent rights and powers 
 of the Emperor, as over against those of the pope. 
 They thus take issue with the claims and declara- 
 tions of various popes during the preceding cen- 
 turies. They maintain that the testimony of both 
 civil and canon law manifestly proves that the 
 imperial dignity and power proceeded from of 
 old directly through the Son of God, and that 
 God openly gave laws to the human race through 
 the emperor and the kings of the world; and since 
 the emperor is made true emperor by the election 
 alone of those to whom it pertains, he does not 
 
 1 Ranker History of the Reformation in Germany, i., 45. 
 
 2 Henderson: Select Historical Documents of the Middle 
 Ages, pp. 360, 437. Robinson: Translations and Reprints 
 from the Original Sources of European History, iii.,,6, pp. 25, 
 26. 
 
Historical Introduction 25 
 
 need the confirmation or approbation of any one 
 else. He has no superior on earth as to temporal 
 things, and peoples and nations are subject to 
 him. Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself ordered 
 men to render unto God the things that are God's 
 and unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's. 
 We declare, by the counsel and consent of the 
 electors and of the other princes of the empire, 
 that the imperial dignity and power come 
 directly from God alone, and that by the old and 
 approved right and custom of the empire, after 
 any one is chosen emperor or king by the electors 
 of the empire, unanimously or by majority vote, 
 he is at once, in consequence of such election alone, 
 to be considered and regarded by all as the true 
 and lawful king and emperor of the Romans, 
 and he should be obeyed by all the subjects of 
 the empire; and he shall have and be considered 
 and firmly asserted by all to have and to hold 
 the imperial administration and jurisdiction and 
 the plenitude of the imperial power. He does not 
 need the approbation, confirmation, authority, or 
 consent of the Apostolic See or of any one else. 
 To hold, assert, or act otherwise is declared to be 
 high treason, subject to all its penalties, in addi- 
 tion to the loss of all fiefs, favours, jurisdictions, 
 privileges, and immunities granted or held from 
 the empire. The law further denies and declares 
 
26 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 false the assertion that the imperial dignity and 
 power come from the pope and that he who is 
 elected emperor is not true emperor or king unless 
 and until he be confirmed and crowned by or 
 through the pope or the Apostolic See. 
 
 The electors saw clearly that their claim of the 
 right to elect the emperor was at stake in the 
 pope's claim of the right to depose the emperor. 
 This and the succeeding popes, however, did not 
 abate their claims to universal sovereignty. They 
 were asserted during the exile at Avignon and 
 in the time of the Great Schism. Alexander VI, 
 in the bull Inter C ester a Divines, of May 4, 1493, 
 acting as head of the universe, made over the 
 new world, by legal deed of gift, to Isabella of 
 Castile and Ferdinand of Aragon; and Pope Leo 
 X, in the bull Pastor JEternus, of 1516 just the 
 year before Martin Luther nailed his ninety-five 
 theses on the church door at Wittenberg asserted 
 the same claims to universal sovereignty as 
 contained in the Unam Sanctam. 1 
 
 Marsilius of Padua, writing in the early part of 
 the fourteenth century, stood practically alone in 
 the Middle Ages in teaching the principle of the 
 complete absorption of church in state. Church 
 property is state property. Church offices are 
 offices of state. The government of the church 
 
 1 Lindsay: A History of the Reformation, i., 4, 5. 
 
Historical Introduction 27 
 
 is a part of the government of the state. Like 
 others, Marsilius reached conclusions from the 
 idea of unity, but in his case this idea was already 
 "transmuting itself into the ' antique-modern ' 
 idea of an all-comprehending internal unity of 
 the state and was proclaiming in advance those 
 principles of the state's absoluteness which would 
 only attain maturity in a then distant future." 1 
 He denied to the pope any right of examining an 
 election. 2 He would have the temporal laws and 
 magistrates make no difference of persons on the 
 score of position or religious opinion. He clearly 
 distinguished between the executive and the 
 legislative powers of government, and advocated 
 a complete separation of temporal from spiritual 
 authority. Indirectly, he noted the difference 
 between state and government. He denied to 
 the church any coercion of conscience, even in 
 spiritual matters; and suggested the framing of 
 laws by duly elected representatives. 3 It is in 
 his views as to the organisation and powers of 
 political and ecclesiastical societies that he sounds 
 a new note. He draws largely from Aristotle as 
 
 Gierke: Political Theories of the Middle Age, pp. 16, 94, 
 120., 191. 
 
 2 Marsilius: Defensor Pacis, ii., 26. 
 
 3 Pollock: An Introduction to the History of the Science 
 of Politics, p. 41. 
 
28 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 to the origin and object of civil government. He 
 says, too, that, according to truth and the opinion 
 of Aristotle, the legislator is the people, or the 
 majority of them, commanding or determining 
 that something be done or refrained from in the 
 field of social human action, under pain of some 
 temporal punishment. 1 In the church, as well as 
 in the state, he believes in popular sovereignty. 
 The sovereign ecclesiastical community is identical 
 with the political assembly of the citizens. 2 Indeed 
 the treatise Defensor Pads, in the writing of which 
 Marsilius had an associate, presents a theory of 
 church and state "in many respects out of all 
 relation to the current of mediaeval thought and 
 accords with the full spirit of the Reformation 
 and the Revolution. ... In general, his whole 
 attitude toward the historical development and 
 tlie~dogmatic supports of the Roman church is 
 precisely that which was assumed by the protes- 
 tants after the Lutheran revolt." 3 The govern- 
 ment, according to his view, is established to 
 maintain peace, and the state exists to render 
 a higher life possible. 4 The power of the king 
 proceeds from his election for a people must 
 
 * Defensor Pads, i., 12. 
 
 2 Gierke: Political Theories of the Middle Age, p. 95. 
 
 3 Dunning: Political Theories Ancient and Mediaeval, pp. 
 238, 244. * Defensor Pads, i., i. 
 
Historical Introduction 29 
 
 choose a ruler; and he is in no respect absolute, 
 but subject both to the laws and to the final 
 judgment of the popular will. 1 Denying the 
 pre-eminence of the Roman See, even in spiritual 
 matters, Marsilius suffered excommunication. 2 
 
 In the writjnglfbf William of Ockham, largely 
 in the form of disputations, it is difficult to dis- 
 cover his own personal views as distinct from 
 those of the persons he introduces into the dis- 
 cussions. The influence of Aristotle, Dante, and 
 Marsilius is in evidence. He makes it the charac- 
 teristic mark of the royal monarchy that the 
 ruler, though free from all restraint of human 
 law, is nevertheless subject to the law of nature. 
 The general functions of the state are legislation, 
 the maintenance of justice, and the promotion 
 of virtue, but the punishment of offenders is 
 the chief function. 3 The coercive authority must 
 be in the prince. The emperor, and the same is 
 true of any other ruler, is not unlimited in author- 
 ity, even in temporal matters. He is subject to 
 the provision that his government be just and 
 useful to the people. 4 Ockham goes so far as to 
 
 1 Bullowa: The History of the Theory of Sovereignty, p. 22. 
 
 2 Pollock: An Introduction to the History of the Science 
 of Politics, p. 41. 3 Ockham: Octo Qucestiones, iii., 6. 
 
 4 Dunning: Political Theories Ancient and Mediceval, pp. 
 244-248. 
 
30 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 hold that, if there were to be but one state for 
 the entire world, with a single head, then this 
 head must be the emperor, and the church can 
 be nothing more than a part of his realm. 1 Mar- 
 silius had suggested that the world of Christian 
 believers be so represented that each province 
 or community have delegates according to the 
 "number and quality" of its inhabitants; but 
 Ockham presents the idea of all the believers of a 
 parish or community choosing delegates to an 
 electoral assembly for the diocese or other given 
 district, and delegates to a representative general 
 council could then be chosen by these assemblies. 2 
 He assumed the right of every people, every 
 community, and every corporation (corpus) to 
 legislate under certain circumstances for itself. 3 
 Wycliffe and Huss pointedly demanded that the 
 church should not be conceived as a temporal 
 state, but in a more internal manner, as the 
 community of the predestinated. 4 
 
 Nicholas of Cusa asserted that it was impossible 
 to improve the church without reforming the 
 empire. He recommended, therefore, the separa- 
 tion and emancipation of civil government. The 
 
 1 Gierke: Political Theories of the Middle Age, p. 16. 
 
 2 Ockham: Dialogus I., vi. 84. 
 
 3 Dunning: Political Theories Ancient and Mediaval, p. 252. 
 * Gierke: Political Theories of the Middle Age, p. 19. 
 
Historical Introduction 31 
 
 jurisdiction of spiritual and temporal courts 
 respectively should be clearly defined. He pre- 
 sented a plan for superior courts of justice, whose 
 assessors should be chosen from the nobles, the 
 clergy and citizens, with power to hear appeals 
 from inferior courts, and also to hear and decide 
 cases between princes in the first instance. He 
 recommended annual meetings of the Imperial 
 Diet for the proper development and maintenance 
 of the authority, unity and strength of the realm. 
 This body should settle differences and pass 
 general laws for the empire, which every member 
 should sign, seal, and observe. No ecclesiastic, 
 he contended, should be exempted from their 
 operation. He deemed a standing army a neces- 
 sity, in order to maintain order and punish the 
 lawless. He suggested that the state might 
 retain for its own use, as determined by the Diet, 
 a percentage of the numerous tolls granted to 
 individuals. 1 
 
 He asserted, too, as a principle of divine and 
 natural right, that the acceptance of those to whom 
 it applies is the basis for the validity of every law, 
 and that general consent is the sole source of 
 obligation. Since all men are by nature free, 
 all government, whether in the form of written 
 
 1 De Concordantia Catholica, iii., 133. Ranker History of 
 the Reformation in Germany, i., 111-113. 
 
32 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 law or of a ruler's will, springs solely from the 
 consent of the subjects. Since all men are by 
 nature equally endowed with power, the superior 
 position of any one can be due only to the choice 
 and consent of the rest. 1 Nicholas of Cusa ad- 
 vances beyond his predecessors in applying these 
 principles, which were already familiar to writers 
 on morality and private law, to public law. He 
 does not apply his theories, however, to the secular 
 state of his day, as one might expect. The choice 
 of the imperial electors is viewed as the choice of 
 the people, and the Imperial Diet is the council 
 representing the popular consent. 2 There is no 
 suggestion in his writings of the popular choice 
 of particular representatives, based on territory 
 and population. 3 
 
 To Machiavelli standing "on the threshold of 
 political science" 4 the state is the highest kind 
 of existence. It is neither a moral nor a legal, 
 but a purely political institution. Utility is the 
 standard of its action. What is injurious to its 
 welfare must be avoided. Like ancient writers, 
 Machiavelli aims at the welfare of the state 
 
 * De Concordantia Catholica, ii., 12, 14. 
 a Ibid., iii., 4, 25. 
 
 3 Dunning: Political Theories Ancient and Mediaeval, pp. 
 273-276. 
 
 * Pollock: An Introduction to the History of the Science of 
 Politics, p. 46. 
 
Historical Introduction 33 
 
 per se rather than the welfare of its citizens. His 
 "great service was to make political science inde- 
 pendent of theology, and to have discovered the 
 distinction between public law (Statsrecht) and 
 politics (Politik)." 1 
 
 1 Bluntschli: The Theory of the State, pp. 61, 62. 
 
 3 
 
CHAPTER II 
 
 THE GERMANY OF LUTHER'S DAY 
 
 AT the close of the fifteenth and the dawn of 
 the sixteenth centuries the Holy Roman 
 Empire was little more than a German power. 1 
 It was composed of a number of virtually sovereign 
 states, principalities, and free cities each with 
 its own diet, representative assembly, senate, or 
 council; each with its elector, prince, or mayor 
 at the head of all of which was an emperor, 2 
 
 1 Bryce: The Holy Roman Empire, pp. 364, 365. 
 
 2 "During all the earlier years of the empire, while an 
 election and crowning in Germany entitled the person thus 
 crowned to become emperor, he was not considered emperor 
 nor allowed to assume that title, until he had made a journey 
 to Italy and been crowned by the pope. In one or two in- 
 stances this formality was dispensed with, and the pope gave 
 his consent for the king to assume the title of emperor and to 
 exercise imperial authority without being crowned. It was 
 the common practice for the electors, during the life of the 
 emperor, to choose his successor, who on the death of the 
 emperor was entitled immediately, on taking the proper steps, 
 to succeed him. Until the death of the emperor, and, indeed, 
 until his crowning by the pope, he was known after his 
 election and crowning as such, as King of the Romans." 
 Case: European Constitutional History, pp. in, 112. 
 
 34 
 
The Germany of Luther's Day 35 
 
 chosen for life by the electoral rulers within the 
 bounds of the empire, with an Imperial Diet 
 composed of various representatives from all 
 parts of the empire. The imperial revenues, so 
 far as the emperor personally was concerned, were 
 not more than those of a wealthy individual; 
 and the empire's hold on outlying districts was so 
 weak that it is difficult to tell whether some such 
 lands belonged to it or not. Switzerland, rather 
 than pay Maximilian the imperial tax, secured 
 its freedom with the sword. Italy was practically 
 lost in the Hohenstaufen period. The emperors 
 were stripped of almost all their territorial pro- 
 perty, and were left without a single city or a 
 single castle belonging to them as emperors. 1 
 Among the powers belonging exclusively and 
 solely to the emperor were the right to represent 
 the empire in dealing with foreign nations, to 
 veto measures submitted by the Imperial Diet, 
 to appoint and regulate the Imperial Aulic Council 
 and fill certain seats in the Imperial Chamber, 
 to grant the privileges de non evocando and de non 
 appellando, to grant royal fiefs but not lapsed 
 ones; to make promotions in rank, to grant titles 
 of nobility, and confer university degrees. 2 
 
 1 Prescott ; Robertson 's History of the Reign of the Emperor 
 Charles V, i., 211. 
 
 2 Turner: A Sketch of the Germanic Constitution, p. 126. 
 
36 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 One of the most important documents deter- 
 mining the rights and privileges of the German 
 people as they existed at the beginning of the 
 sixteenth century was the Golden Bull, 1 issued 
 by Charles IV in 1356 as a fundamental law of 
 the empire. It determined the procedure for 
 the election and coronation of the emperor. It 
 designated the imperial electors seven in number 
 four of whom were secular and three ecclesias- 
 tical princes. The election was to be held at 
 Frankfort, and a majority of votes was sufficient 
 to elect. It regulated the rights, duties, privileges, 
 and prerogatives of the electors, giving them 
 virtually sovereign rights in their respective 
 territories, and these territories could not be 
 subdivided or alienated. Each elector, in his 
 own district, was given the so-called regalia, i.e., 
 the ownership of mines of gold, silver, and other 
 metals, the right of coinage, the taxes on the 
 Jews, and the tolls which had been previously 
 assigned. Conspiracy against the electors was 
 declared high treason to be punished with death 
 by the sword, as well as confiscation of property. 
 The electors were granted the important privileges 
 
 1 Turner: A Sketch of the Germanic Constitution, p. 98 et seq. 
 Henderson: Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages, 
 pp. 174, 220. Bryce: The Holy Roman Empire, p. 243. 
 Janssen: History of the German People, ii., 122. 
 
The Germany of Luther's Day 37 
 
 known as the privilegium de non evocando and the 
 privilegium de non appellando. Under the former 
 provision, the subjects of any territory belonging 
 to an elector might be tried only in the courts 
 of that particular elector's territory, and cases in 
 such courts could not be carried to any other 
 courts. Under the latter provision, appeal would 
 not lie from the territorial courts to the imperial 
 courts. The sole exception to this rule was in 
 case of delay in or denial of justice. Another 
 provision in this historic law was that the subjects 
 of princes, seeking to gain citizenship in the 
 cities solely in order to gain protection against 
 their former lords would not be permitted to do 
 so. In bonafide cases where such subjects actually 
 took up their domicile in the city and submitted 
 to their due burdens and municipal obligations, 
 they would not be disturbed. 1 In case of vacancy 
 on the throne, the count palatine and the Elector 
 of Saxony were to administer the affairs of the 
 empire. It was further provided that the electors 
 should meet annually to consider the affairs of 
 the empire, though this provision was not carried 
 out. 
 
 For a hundred years prior to the beginning of 
 
 1 In spite of these provisions, and despite all opposition, 
 the institution of the Pfahlbiirger continued. Turner: A 
 Sketch of the Germanic Constitution, p. 115. 
 
38 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 Luther's public life, the constitutional and political 
 condition of Germany was determined by and 
 dependent on the periodical Imperial Diets, 1 
 which exercised rights and powers not always, 
 if ever, accurately defined. They declared war 
 and peace, levied taxes, and exercised a certain 
 supervision over the general affairs of the empire. 
 The emperor and the electors appeared in person, 
 as well as the other princes, the counts and lords 
 or their representatives, and the deputies from 
 the cities. At the beginning of the sixteenth 
 century, the diet was made up of three colleges, 
 electors, princes, and representatives from the 
 cities. The lesser nobility and the knights were 
 not represented. 2 These colleges deliberated sepa- 
 rately. The answer was drawn up by the Electoral 
 College and presented to the others for acceptance. 3 
 The college of deputies from the cities could 
 prevent the passage of a measure, but in this age 
 it had no vote on the final determination of any 
 matter, 4 the two upper colleges maintaining 
 for years that the representatives of the cities 
 were summoned only for consultation. 5 After 
 
 Ranke: History of the Reformation in Germany, i., vii. 
 
 2 Bryce: The Holy Roman Empire ; p. 367. 
 
 3 Ranke: History of the Reformation in Germany, i., 97. 
 * Case: European Constitutional History, p. 118. 
 
 s Turner: Sketch of the Germanic Constitution, p. 132. 
 
The Germany of Luther's Day 39 
 
 passage by these two colleges, each measure went 
 to the emperor for his assent, and then became 
 law. In the final decision of any question before 
 them, the colleges of electors and princes sat 
 and voted together as one body. The unity of 
 the nation was represented by these Imperial 
 Diets. Their consent was necessary to all im- 
 portant public acts. They exercised certain 
 judicial, as well as deliberative and legislative 
 powers. Questions came before them affecting 
 princes, and many other matters submitted to 
 the emperor on which he could not act alone. 
 
 The various states of the empire, in like manner, 
 possessed their own provincial or territorial diets 
 or Landtage. Their membership differed; but 
 it was composed, in the larger territories, of 
 prelates, counts, barons, knights, and representa- 
 tives of the cities. 1 They were presided over 
 by their respective princes, and each prince was, 
 in most matters, within his own territory, vir- 
 tually supreme. State taxes could not be imposed 
 without the consent of the Landtage, just as im- 
 perial taxes could not be levied without the 
 consent of the Imperial Diet. The Landtage 
 legislated, with the concurrence of the prince, 
 on all matters connected with their peoples and 
 territories, excepting only those belonging to the 
 
 1 Turner: Sketch of the Germanic Constitution, p. 104. 
 
40 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 Imperial Diet. They sometimes decided a dis- 
 puted succession to the dukedom or other post, 
 but such a matter was usually considered as 
 belonging to the jurisdiction of the emperor. 1 
 As a rule, territorial princes presided over the 
 law courts in their respective jurisdictions. 
 
 After suffering from feuds, private wars, and 
 personal disputes for as much as a thousand years 
 a measure known as the Perpetual National 
 Peace (Der Ewige Landfriede) was passed by the 
 Imperial Diet held by Maximilian in the city of 
 Worms in 1495. Notwithstanding Germany's 
 great need of order, security, and peace, this law 
 was passed only after fourteen weeks' earnest 
 discussion, and in spite of the opposition of many 
 of the princes and nearly all the nobility. All 
 such disputes thereafter were to be referred to 
 an imperial court, permanently established at 
 Frankfort, to be composed of a president and 
 sixteen councillors or assessors. This was the 
 first permanent imperial law court in Germany, 
 not dependent upon the movements of the emperor 
 from city to city. Maximilian agreed that the 
 statute law should be in force in this supreme court 
 and that no more than the regular fees should 
 be exacted. More than this, he granted to the 
 court the office of proclaiming the ban of the 
 
 1 Case: European Constitutional History, pp. 120, 121. 
 
The Germany of Luther's Day 41 
 
 empire in his name. He yielded to the estates 
 the appointments to this bench, except in the 
 case of the president (Kammerrichter) , who was 
 to be nominated by the emperor himself. The 
 estates appointed the assessors, but the cities were 
 asked to propose certain candidates for this office. 
 A committee examined and decided on the pre- 
 sentations. By this legislation, the character of 
 the imperial court entirely changes. Formerly a 
 monarchical institution, it now becomes depend- 
 ent, in a measure, on the estates of the realm. 1 
 In civil and criminal matters it was given original 
 jurisdiction in cases affecting parties holding 
 immediately of the emperor, and appellate juris- 
 diction in private cases where denial of or delay 
 in justice was shown in the territorial courts, 
 in cases appealed from courts in territories not 
 possessing the privilegium de non appellando, and 
 in disputes between different states of the empire, 
 including appeals from the awards of arbitrators 
 between states. 2 
 
 At this same Diet, the Emperor's concession 
 was met by a corresponding concession from the 
 estates. 3 They allowed the grant of the ' ' common 
 
 Ranke: History of the Reformation in Germany, i., 122. 
 
 2 Case: European Constitutional History, p. 123. 
 
 3 Ranke: History of the Reformation in Germany, i., 122- 
 124. 
 
42 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 penny, "* a tax of one gulden on every thousand, 
 and half a gulden on every five hundred. Among 
 persons of slender means, every twenty-four 
 above fifteen years of age, without exception, 
 male and female, ecclesiastic and layman, were 
 to contribute one gulden. The more wealthy 
 classes were required to pay according to their 
 own estimate of their property. The people were 
 to be urged by the priests from the pulpit to give 
 more than this amount. While the plan was 
 imperfect, and somewhat confused with charity, 
 it was nevertheless a systematic attempt at a 
 general imperial tax for the purposes of peace as 
 well as war, including the support of the newly 
 established imperial court or chamber. The 
 choice of the imperial treasurer was left to the 
 estates. This official was to turn over the revenue 
 received from these taxes to the Diet, and this 
 body was given exclusive control over them. 
 But all these splendid plans, poorly executed at 
 best, were short-lived. 
 The estates claimed the right, as a diet, of 
 
 The common penny, a combination of general property 
 and poll tax, had been voted by the Diet at long intervals, be- 
 ginning with the year 1427, but it had never been systemat- 
 ically collected, and furthermore the knights had absolutely 
 refused to pay it. "It was voted for the last time in 1495, 
 and soon thereafter abandoned as impracticable." Turner: 
 A Sketch of the Germanic Constitution, p. 112. 
 
The Germany of Luther's Day 43 
 
 giving or withholding their consent to a declaration 
 of war. They held that every conquest was to 
 accrue to the empire. Maximilian rejected as an 
 assault upon his prerogatives a proposition to 
 establish a council of state, 1 with power, in certain 
 cases, to act in the Emperor's name. The Diet 
 of Augsburg, in 1500, however, so strongly urged 
 the necessity of a permanent imperial council which 
 might relieve the Emperor and the estates from 
 constant meeting of diets, and to whose energy 
 and care the execution of the Diet's edicts might 
 be entrusted, that Maximilian was forced to 
 submit. The council of administration thus 
 authorised was to consist of representatives of the 
 three several colleges of the Diet. The Emperor 
 was given the right to preside in person or by 
 his representative. To this council were given 
 most important powers, including everything 
 regarding the administration of justice, the mainte- 
 nance of the public peace, protection of the 
 country against aggression or assault, and the 
 regulation of affairs both domestic and foreign. 
 It was empowered "to originate, to discuss, to 
 determine." Having this authority, it was also 
 given the suggestive title Reichsregiment (govern- 
 ment of the empire, or council of administra- 
 
 1 Reichsregiment. 
 
44 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 tion) . * This institution, however, proved unsatis- 
 factory to the Emperor and to the estates alike, 
 though for different reasons, and continued in exist- 
 ence but two years. 2 We are told that already in 
 1502 this council and the assessors of the imperial 
 chamber dispersed to their homes, neither having 
 been paid their salaries, nor permitted to exercise 
 their functions. Maximilian then proceeded to 
 set up and preside over an imperial court of 
 justice similar to the one his father had maintained, 
 with assessors arbitrarily appointed. 3 To this 
 court he referred matters pertaining to his own 
 territories and other cases coming before him as 
 Emperor. In addition to its exclusive jurisdiction 
 in feudal and certain other cases, this court, 
 designed to strengthen the imperial prerogative, 
 was given appellate jurisdiction co-ordinate with 
 the imperial chamber. 4 The estates earnestly 
 and resolutely opposed Maximilian's plans to 
 extend his imperial prerogatives in this and other 
 ways. 
 
 The early years of the sixteenth century marked 
 
 1 Ranke: History of the Reformation in Germany, i., 155, 
 156. This council of administration was again instituted 
 in 1521, but continued only a decade. 
 
 2 Mr. James Bryce says that Maximilian did his best to 
 ensure its failure. Holy Roman Empire, p. 366. 
 
 3 Ranke: History of the Reformation in Germany, i., 159, 160. 
 
 4 Case: European Constitutional History, p. 123. 
 
The Germany of Luther's Day 45 
 
 many a contest between the Emperor and the 
 estates. Maximilian was in urgent need of war 
 subsidies, but the Diet held at Worms in 1509 
 declared its members were neither able nor bound 
 to support him in his war beyond the imperial 
 territory. They unanimously declared themselves 
 ready to consider any propositions presented to 
 them concerning law and order, the administration 
 of justice, or coinage. They recognised the needs 
 of their own people and their own country as of 
 prime importance, demanding first consideration. 
 They sought a more clearly defined representative 
 government that would maintain the dignity, 
 and yet limit the arbitrary power, of the emperor. 
 They endeavoured to introduce system and uni- 
 formity into the military, financial, and legal 
 administration of the empire, even at the ex- 
 pense of the authority and prerogatives of the 
 territorial rulers. 1 
 
 Many earnest attempts were thus made to 
 establish a stronger, more systematic, more uni- 
 form, and more representative form of government, 
 but they invariably failed, in part, if not in 
 whole. The proposed reforms of 1495, reluctantly 
 assented to by Maximilian, suffered that fate. 
 Those actually established were permitted to 
 wither. The Imperial Chamber and Aulic Council 
 
 1 Ranke: History of 'the Reformation in Germany, i., 203-206. 
 
46 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 were both allowed to fall into disuse. The only 
 reforms of permanent value were the Landfriede, or 
 edict of perpetual national peace, and the division 
 of the empire into circles or districts, both of 
 which served, in a measure, as a counterpoise 
 to the powers of the princes. This was all that 
 remained of the various projects of reform from 
 which so much had been fondly expected. 
 
 "So ended," says Mr. Bryce, 1 "the first great 
 effort for German unity," an effort to estab- 
 lish a body which would resemble far more nearly 
 the senate of a federal state than the administra- 
 tive council which surrounds a monarch. These 
 attempts to secure permanent imperial officials 
 and uniform administration throughout the empire, 
 to completely check private wars, and to put 
 into satisfactory operation the proposed Imperial 
 Chamber, however, were unsuccessful. The vari- 
 ous princes and established powers framed new 
 codes of law, introduced new administrative 
 systems, and ruled more despotically than ever. 
 
 Looking now at the economic conditions in 
 existence at the beginning of the sixteenth century, 
 it will be remembered that the printing press 
 and the use of movable type were invented half 
 a century before this, and printing establish- 
 ments were now scattered not only all over Ger- 
 
 Bryce: The Holy Roman Empire, p. 367. 
 
UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF 
 
 The Germany of Luther's Day 47 
 
 many but in all civilised Europe. "We Ger- 
 mans," wrote Wimpheling in 1507, "practically 
 control the whole intellectual market of civilised 
 Europe; the books, however, which we bring to 
 this market are for the most part high-class works 
 tending to the honour of God, the salvation of 
 souls, and the civilisation of the people." 
 
 In certain parts of Germany, especially along 
 the middle Rhine, there were village* schools; in 
 some cases, girls' schools. The larger towns, in 
 addition to the elementary grades, had higher 
 schools. All these schools were closely connected 
 with the church and were under the supervision 
 of the clergy. They were supported by the church, 
 by fees, and by legacies. The home and the 
 school alike were to co-operate with the church 
 in the instruction of God's word and the teachings 
 of the church. Aside from the teaching given 
 under and for the church, generally in the parish 
 schools, there was no such thing as popular 
 or compulsory education. 1 Taxes or rates for 
 the support of schools were then unknown. 2 
 Special schools were provided for the nobility. 
 
 The historian Janssen asserts that at no other 
 period of German history have the universities 
 
 1 Janssen : History of the German People at the Close of the 
 Middle Ages, i., 25 et seq. 
 
 2 Ibid,, i., 81. 
 
48 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 ever had such enthusiastic and self-sacrificing 
 support lavished on them as in the fifty years 
 from 1460 to 1510, and that at no other period 
 have they ever made such tremendous strides 
 in the way of progress. They were designed to 
 be not only the highest schools of secular, but 
 also of religious, learning. "They were to serve 
 for the protection and propagation of the faith." 
 Hence the charters of all the earlier and most 
 of the later ones were granted by the pope. 
 "From the nature of their constitution the uni- 
 versities were recognised as ecclesiastical author- 
 ities. Their whole organisation was permeated 
 with the clerical spirit." 1 
 
 At the close of the Middle Ages most of the 
 soil belonged to the princes, the feudal lords, and 
 the cities, with a very large share in the possession 
 of the church. Farmers and house tenants, 
 as they were called, paid rent or rendered stipu- 
 lated service for their holdings. Under the 
 Christian German law, there was no serfdom in 
 that country in the fifteenth century except 
 among the peasants of Pomerania. The church 
 proclaimed the old Swabian common law that 
 no man belongs to another. The tenant, however, 
 was bound to the land and could not leave his 
 
 i Janssen : History of the German People at the Close of the 
 Middle Ages, i., 87. 
 
The Germany of Luther's Day 49 
 
 holdings without the consent of the lord. Every 
 man coming into such a possession was required 
 to bind himself with an oath of allegiance to the 
 lord of the soil. Day labourers and servants 
 were better off than the peasants. 
 
 There was a marked change, however, in eco- 
 nomic conditions, at the close of the fifteenth and 
 the beginning of the sixteenth century. A large 
 number of crop failures, the development of 
 domestic and foreign commerce, the discovery 
 of America and her gold, and the growing trade 
 with the East Indies all contributed to a steady 
 rise in the cost of living. The labourer's wage 
 increased but little, sometimes it was materially 
 decreased; while the cost of living rose by leaps 
 and bounds. In the middle of the sixteenth 
 century the workmen found that ''the price of 
 rye rose from six to twenty-four groschen per 
 bushel, the price of a sheep from four to eighteen 
 groschen, and so on with the other necessaries." 1 
 Indeed the wages of the sixteenth century "were 
 only half what they had been between 1450 and 
 1500," a condition of things which likewise 
 existed in England, France, and Italy. The 
 position of the country peasant at the beginning 
 of the sixteenth century has been described as one 
 
 Janssen: History of the German People at the Close of the 
 Middle Ages, i., 349. 
 
50 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 of "extreme wretchedness." His land was mort- 
 gaged at high rates of interest, and the ensuing 
 harvest was ofttimes pledged on account of a 
 loan. Little, if anything, had been done, or even 
 attempted, by the Imperial Diet to guard the 
 agricultural population from the absolute tyranny 
 of the landed nobility. Repeated efforts of the 
 peasantry to better their condition invariably 
 ended in crushing defeat and harsher treatment 
 than before. The disaffection and dissatisfaction 
 of peasants and labourers became alarming. 
 When the Imperial Diet met at Mayence in 1517, 
 complaints were heard on every side as to the 
 inefficiency of the imperial court, the general dis- 
 regard of law, the insecurity of the public roads, 
 and the oppression of the helpless poor. The 
 estates demanded a remedy of the Emperor. 1 
 
 The progress of Germany at the close of the 
 Middle Ages was much more marked in the field 
 of manufacture than in agriculture. Industrial 
 and commercial development was rapid. There 
 were prosperous guilds of the various trades regu- 
 lating many matters pertaining not only to their 
 work itself, but also concerning their personal 
 rights and privileges. The guild was subject to 
 the town council and authorities and was obliged 
 
 1 Lewis : A History of Germany from the Earliest Times , 
 p. 310. 
 
The Germany of Luther's Day 51 
 
 to submit its ordinances and regulations for ap- 
 proval. The guild controlled the purchase of the 
 raw material for the work of its members. It 
 regulated hours of labour, wages, conditions and 
 amount of work, and the number of apprentices, 
 in order to equalise profits, for it maintained that 
 labour rights belonged to the organisation first 
 and to the individual only as a member of that 
 body. Prices, and times and places of selling the 
 products of their labour were likewise fixed. There 
 were inspectors of food stuffs, such as bread, flour, 
 and fish, and also of wine and beer. The mining 
 industries of the country were of great importance 
 and yielded large returns. 
 
 Many documents of that age bear testimony to 
 the luxury and extravagance in dress and food 
 of all classes, princes, merchants, artisans, and 
 peasants alike. Germany's foreign commerce 
 was extending all over Western and Southern 
 Europe, and to America and the East Indies as 
 well. Books were written and sermons preached 
 against the spirit of the age in which no one was 
 contented with his lot, and even the rustic aped 
 the nobleman. 
 
 As the privilege of coinage had been accorded 
 for centuries to small principalities and free cities, 
 and Germany was flooded with a great number of 
 different coinages, money-changers were a neces- 
 
52 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 sity; but their work extended to loaning money, 
 which was done in most cases at a high rate of 
 interest. 
 
 Trading companies agreed upon the mutual 
 exploitation and control of various lines of trade 
 or business and divided the profits. Christopher 
 Kuppner, Professor of Jurisprudence at the Uni- 
 versity of Leipsic, in his work on usury, in the 
 year 1508, urges the magistrates to proceed against 
 "those wealthy merchants or trading companies 
 who have agents at Vienna, in Russia, and in 
 Prussia, and who, when they learn that any particu- 
 lar article of trade has gone up in price, whether 
 it be saffron, pepper, corn, or what not, instantly 
 buy it all up to sell it again at whatever price 
 they please. . . . Princes and rulers should not 
 tolerate such dealings, and should be more careful 
 for the general good of their subjects." 1 The 
 Imperial Diet at Cologne, in 1512, took measures 
 against the great trading companies whose object 
 
 was to control the market to their own profit and 
 
 the injury of the public; but the empire could not 
 control the avaricious spirit. Furthermore, too, 
 many councillors- and princes were themselves 
 members of such companies or received considera- 
 tions from them; and these combinations and 
 
 1 Janssen : History of the German People at the Close of the 
 Middle Ages, ii., 82. 
 
The Germany of Luther's Day 53 
 
 monopolies only increased in number and in power. 
 Their profits were enormous. Trade and com- 
 merce developed an excessive greed for gain, and 
 fostered extravagance in life. 
 
 Another factor of prime importance in the 
 changes of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries 
 must be considered, the introduction into Ger- 
 many of the Roman law. The Christian German 
 theory acknowledged justice as proceeding from 
 God. Each province, each town, each village, 
 and each calling or class of people had its own 
 rights, privileges, and laws. There thus existed 
 an endless confusion of laws and precedents dif- 
 fering in detail but all based on the same principles 
 and conceptions of law. Every man was entitled! 
 to be judged by his peers men of his own class. 
 There was a public hearing and open discussion, 
 with all parties interested present. There were no 
 legal practitioners interested in cultivating or 
 prolonging cases. Every man, though belonging 
 to the poorest and the lowest class, was sure of 
 fair and speedy trial in the open. 
 
 But the close of the fifteenth and the opening of 
 the sixteenth centuries saw the gradual and steady 
 introduction into the country of the Roman code 
 of law, which clothed the ruler with unlimited 
 power and supreme authority. It did not recog- 
 nise the traditional rights of the German people. 
 
54 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 It was encouraged by the princes, taught in the 
 universities, and cultivated by the courts. Other 
 influences that favoured its introduction were 
 those of the empire, the church, the one common 
 commercial language Latin, and the desirability, 
 if not necessity, of a uniform jurisprudence and a 
 learned bench. Its reception in the civil courts 
 was not yet final or complete, but steadily advanc- 
 ing; and the administration of justice gradually 
 fell into the hands of men who knew nothing of the 
 German laws, rights, and precedents, and did not 
 want to know. The German people rebelled in 
 vain against the imposition of the new law. The 
 striking contrast between the old and the new is 
 shown by the historian Johannes Janssen in lan- 
 guage that presents the introduction into Germany 
 of the Roman code as one of the leading causes of 
 the discontent that is found at this period, especi- 
 ally among the peasants and the lower classes. 
 He says 1 : 
 
 Notwithstanding the evils of private warfare, the 
 peasants enjoyed protection of their rights under the 
 Christian German law, and led happy lives. They 
 lived under the regulations of their corporations, paid 
 moderate taxes and services, and settled their griev- 
 ances according to their traditionary customs in their 
 
 Janssen : History of the German People at the Close of the 
 Middle Ages, ii., 182-185. 
 
The Germany of Luther's Day 55 
 
 own tribunals. Just as the state's representatives had 
 a voice in the imperial government, the district repre- 
 sentatives in the territorial management, so the 
 peasants on an estate had regular meetings to settle 
 matters in the interest of the property. The fully 
 accredited members at those meetings were, so to 
 speak, the manor-government. The taxes, which 
 were moderate, were generally ground rents or 
 charges of fiefdom. 
 
 The introduction of the Roman code entirely 
 changed this state of things, and the exclusion of the 
 peasants from the tribunals resulted in the ancient 
 legal customs being entirely set aside. The old 
 customs and unwritten law lost their force, nothing 
 being held as valid that could not be sustained by 
 documentary evidence. The being deprived of the 
 protecting right to be tried by their peers was a 
 serious loss to the tenants and freeholders. 
 
 The new code was in no way applicable to the 
 peasant conditions which had gradually developed 
 in Germany. Under the Caesars there were no free 
 peasants, no life-tenants, or tenants in the German 
 acceptation of the word; therefore the Roman code 
 did not meet the necessities of such a social condition. 
 The Roman Empire recognised only autocrats and 
 slaves; so the new jurists, who judged everything 
 according to the Justinian code, destroyed with 
 merciless hand all that was so dearly connected with 
 German traditions, and built up the new code on the 
 ruins of the ancient order. They looked on all German 
 
56 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 leases as limited, and applied the Roman slave law 
 to the German manor rights. They invested avari- 
 cious and ambitious princes and landlords with legal 
 authority not only to deprive the peasants of their 
 communal rights, but to ev*ct them from their life- 
 lease possessions and to increase their taxes. . . . 
 
 The introduction of the Roman code created un- 
 speakable confusion in all grades of society. Exactly 
 in proportion as it grew and prevailed did national 
 rights and national freedom go to the wall. As in 
 ancient Rome, the law became the means by which 
 the state arrogated to itself supreme power, ignoring 
 all obstacles. 
 
 The German prince or ruler was to be a princeps, 
 in the ancient Roman sense. That is to say, the 
 judgment and the will of the sovereign determined 
 and regulated legislation and administration, 
 whether of justice, military, finance, police, com- 
 merce, or other branch or field of the government 
 service. 
 
 The seething discontent engendered by the 
 foreign code is summed up by Janssen in these 
 words 1 : 
 
 Nowhere in the Roman legal system is labour looked 
 upon as the basis of property ; the value of free labour, 
 the subjection of the individual to the law of daily 
 
 i Janssen : History of the German People at the Close of the 
 Middle Ages, ii., 104, 105. 
 
The Germany of Luther's Day 57 
 
 work, were quite ignored by its compilers, and hence 
 there is never any question of free organisation of 
 labour and of a just distribution of the produce of 
 labour. Laborious toil was the lot of down-trodden 
 slaves, while the powerful classes possessed and 
 enjoyed. 
 
 The more deeply this pagan doctrine rooted itself 
 in the German soil in the course of the sixteenth 
 century, the greater became the abuse of property, 
 the deterioration of the working classes, and the 
 retrogression of the political standing of the nation. 
 Not commercial and industrial life only, but the 
 development of the peasant conditions also, was 
 powerfully disturbed. 
 
 But the pernicious workings of the new legal system 
 spread far beyond the domain of industrial economy. 
 Its poison entered into the whole sphere of ecclesi- 
 astical and political life. Everywhere favouring the 
 might of property, and the subjection of the nation 
 by princely absolutism, it undermined the foundations 
 of German law and of the German constitution. 
 
 It was at this time that the imperial electors 
 chose the young Charles V as Emperor, in 1519. 
 As a condition precedent to his election, his am- 
 bassadors were required by the electors to sign 
 capitulations, 1 guaranteeing to the estates their 
 vested rights, and the Emperor himself was 
 required to make oath to them before his corona- 
 
 Schoenfeld : Ranke's Kaiserwahl Karl's V, p. 84. 
 
58 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 tion. In them he pledged himself to uphold the 
 established constitution and to protect the estates 
 in their vested rights and privileges. Without 
 the consent of the electors, he would not involve 
 the empire in any alliance or war, part with any 
 of the possessions of the empire, levy any taxes 
 upon the estates, impose any new tolls or increase 
 any already existing, hold imperial diets, or 
 enlist foreign troops in the imperial service. He 
 further pledged himself to appoint none but 
 natives of Germany to imperial office, to use only 
 the German and Latin languages in the affairs of 
 state, to maintain peace and order, to use the 
 revenues of the crown for the public good, to 
 re-establish the imperial regency or council of 
 administration (Reichsregiment), and to reside 
 as much as possible within the bounds of the em- 
 pire. The estates were not to be subject to any 
 jurisdiction beyond the bounds of the empire. 
 Great monopolies like that of the Fuggers and 
 the aggressions of the court of Rome were to be 
 restrained, and no one should be placed under 
 the ban of the empire without previous formal 
 trial. 
 
 In the interim, between the election and the 
 coronation of Charles V as Emperor, an appeal 
 was made to the nobility of Germany that had 
 as important and far-reaching political influence 
 
The Germany of Luther's Day 59 
 
 in many ways as the ninety-five theses nailed on 
 the door of the Castle Church at Wittenberg, 
 October 31, 1517, had in the religious realm. 
 The author of both these documents was the 
 monk, the preacher, the university professor, and 
 the reformer, Martin Luther; and to his teachings 
 on the subject of civil government we now turn 
 our attention. Just at the time when he appeals 
 from the Pope to a general council, and again 
 to his countrymen at large, at the time when he 
 stands alone before representatives of church and 
 state combined against him, at the time when 
 excommunication from the Roman Church has 
 been followed by the ban of the empire, all politi- 
 cal and administrative affairs in the Holy Roman 
 Empire of the German nation were in confusion. 
 Ranke thus describes the state of affairs: 
 
 As yet everything was wavering and unsettled; 
 no form had been found for the government; no 
 system of finance, no military organisation perfected ; 
 there was no supreme court of justice; the Public 
 Peace was not maintained. All classes in the empire 
 were at strife princes and nobles, knights and citi- 
 zens, priests and laymen; above all, the higher classes 
 and the peasants. In addition to all these sources 
 of confusion, arose the religious movement, embracing 
 every region of mind, originating in the depths of 
 the national consciousness, and now bursting forth in 
 
60 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 open revolt against the head of the hierarchy. The 
 existing generation was powerful, intelligent, inven- 
 tive, earnest, thoughtful. It had a presentiment 
 that it contained the germ of a great moral and 
 social revolution. 1 
 
 Ranke: History of the Reformation in Germany, i., 496. 
 
CHAPTER III 
 
 THE NATURE, NECESSITY, AND ORIGIN OF THE 
 STATE 
 
 THE state has been defined as "a community 
 of considerable size, occupying a clearly 
 defined territory, owning direct and complete 
 allegiance to a common authority, and invested 
 with a personality which enables it to act more 
 or less as an individual." 1 Another defines it, 
 in its wider significance, as "a body of human 
 beings deriving its corporate unity from the fact 
 that its members acknowledge permanent obedi- 
 ence to the same government, which represents 
 the society in any transactions that it may carry 
 on as a body with other political societies." 2 
 The state, says another, is "a combination or 
 association of men in the form of government and 
 governed, on a definite territory, united together 
 into a moral organised masculine personality," 
 or, more briefly, "the politically organised national 
 
 Jenks: Law and Politics in the Middle Ages, p. 68. 
 2 Sidgwick: Elements of Politics, p. 221. 
 61 
 
62 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 person of a definite country. ' ' * ' ' The civil consti- 
 tution," according to Kant's definition, "is a 
 relation of free men who live under coercive laws, 
 without prejudicing their liberty otherwise in 
 the whole of their connection with others." 2 
 To Watt, "The state seems to indicate that exter- 
 nal form which society assumes in consequence of 
 its organisation; it is the body of society, the 
 political manifestation of its growth." 3 Several 
 other writers on the subject have presented these 
 briefer and no less satisfactory definitions: "A 
 state is a people organised for law within a defi- 
 nite territory" 4 ; "a society organised and inde- 
 pendent" 5 ; and "a particular portion of mankind 
 viewed as an organised unit." 6 An analysis of 
 these definitions of the state emphasises these 
 three essentials: a territory, however small; a 
 number of people, however few; and a vested 
 common authority, sovereign and independent. 
 Political writers recognise a marked distinction 
 
 Bluntschli: The Theory of the State, p. 23. 
 
 Kant: Principles of Politics, p. 35. 
 
 Watt: Outline of Legal Philosophy, p. 56. 
 
 The modern definition of the state. Wilson: The State, 
 p. 8. 
 
 M'Kechnie: The State and the Individual, p. 47. 
 
 Definition of the state from the standpoint of the concept. 
 Burgess: Political Science and Comparative, Constitutional 
 Law, i., 50. 
 
The Nature and Origin of the State 63 
 
 between state and government. The state is the 
 sovereign power residing back of any and all ad- 
 ministrations or forms of government. The gov- 
 ernment may change again and again in name, in 
 form, in fact, and yet the state itself continue 
 unchanged. The government is the state's ma- 
 chinery or organisation, through which its pur- 
 poses are formulated and executed. 1 The state is 
 larger, deeper, stronger, and more abiding than 
 any particular form, phase, or period of its govern- 
 ment. "The distinction is natural and needful. 
 It is suggestively analogous to that between 
 religion and the church; between art and pro- 
 ductions which are termed artistic; between 
 science and results in which science is said to be 
 expressed; between righteous authority and con- 
 trolling power; between justice and statute law." 2 
 If the throne represent the government, the state 
 may be termed the power behind the throne. It 
 must be kept clearly in mind that the state is 
 more than the government, even when the latter 
 term is stretched to its limit to include the 
 legislative, executive, and judicial machinery and 
 authority of a country. 3 The proper relation 
 
 1 Willoughby: An Examination of the Nature of the State, 
 p. 8. 
 
 2 Chamberlain : The State, its Nature, Origin, and Functions, 
 p. 2. 
 
 3 M'Kechnie: The State and the Individual, p. 49. 
 
64 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 between state and government is that of master 
 and servant. 
 
 That the state is natural and necessary to man 
 was recognised already by Aristotle. He declared : 
 
 And he who by nature and not by mere accident 
 is without a state is either above humanity, or below 
 it; he is the "tribeless, lawless, hearthless one" whom 
 Homer denounces. . . . The proof that the state 
 is a creation of nature and prior to the individual 
 is that the individual, when isolated, is not self- 
 sufficing ; and therefore he is like a part in relation to 
 the whole. But he who is unable to live in society, or 
 who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, 
 must be either a beast or a god: he is no part of a 
 state. A social instinct is implanted in all men by 
 nature, and yet he who first founded the state was 
 the greatest of benefactors. For man, when perfected, 
 is the best of animals, but, when separated from law 
 and justice, he is the worst of all ; since armed injustice 
 is the more dangerous, and he is equipped at birth 
 with the arms of intelligence and with moral qualities 
 which he may use for the worst ends. Wherefore, if 
 he have not virtue, he is the most unholy and the 
 most savage of animals, and the most full of lust and 
 gluttony. But justice is the bond of men in states, 
 and the administration of justice, which is the deter- 
 mination of what is just, is the principle of order in 
 political society. 1 
 
 * Aristotle: Politics, i., 2, pp. 28-30. See Schiller's Das 
 Eleusische Fest. 
 
The Nature and Origin of the State 65 
 
 Volumes have been written on speculations 
 and theories concerning the origin of the state. 
 Polybius assigned its origin to man's instinct. 1 
 Cicero discovered it in man's love of society, 
 and not in his weakness. 2 St. Augustine adopted 
 the theory of Cicero and Plato, that man was 
 led by his own nature to enter society, but added 
 to that the view that he entered society to have 
 peace, and that there was a general agreement 
 (pactum) of human society to obey kings. As 
 Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk and 
 made the writings of St. Augustine his special 
 study for many years, and imbibed and reflected 
 his teachings in many matters, it is interesting 
 to observe that here in St. Augustine is to be found 
 the germ of the idea that government rests on 
 the consent of the governed, and that the govern- 
 ment is to render service to the governed. In 
 the natural order of the world, God arranged for 
 man to rule only animals. One man was not to 
 be ruled by another. 3 Nicholas of Cusa, a thou- 
 sand years later, echoed the same principle, though 
 in stronger, clearer language. AH men, he main- 
 
 1 Polybius: Histories, vi., 4. 
 
 2 Sullivan: The Antecedents of the Declaration of Inde- 
 pendence, i., 72. 
 
 3 St. Augustine: Confessiones, book in.; De Civitate Dei, 
 book xix. ; Sermons in Ante-Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 
 vi., 302. 
 
66 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 tained, are by nature free, and therefore all 
 government springs from and rests on the consent 
 of the governed. 1 Thomas Aquinas held that the 
 state is due to man's social instinct, and is not 
 a consequence of his fall from primitive bliss. 
 Society requires control. Without the latter, the 
 former would soon fall to pieces. 2 
 
 Sir Henry Maine was the leading advocate of 
 the patriarchal theory, i.e., that society originated 
 in separate families, held together by the authority 
 and protection of the oldest valid male ascendant. 3 
 
 Hooker held that the natural laws "bind men 
 absolutely, even as they are men, although they 
 have never any settled fellowship, never any 
 solemn agreement amongst themselves what to 
 do or not to do. But forasmuch as we are not 
 by ourselves sufficient to furnish ourselves with 
 competent store of things needful for such a 
 life as our nature doth desire, a life fit for the 
 dignity of man, therefore to supply those defects 
 and imperfections which are in us living single 
 and solely by ourselves, we are naturally induced 
 to seek communion and fellowship with others. 
 
 De Concordantia Catholica, ii., 12, 14. 
 
 2 Aquinas: Summa Theologia, i., xcvi. ; De Regimine Princi- 
 pum, i., i. Baumann : Die Staatslehre des Thomas von Aquino, 
 p. 1 08. Bullowa: The History of the Theory of Sovereignty , 
 p. 19. 
 
 3 Maine: Ancient Law, p. 118. 
 
The Nature and Origin of the State 67 
 
 This was the cause of men uniting themselves at 
 the first in political societies." 1 
 
 The same writer says further: "All public 
 regiment of what kind soever seemeth evidently 
 to have risen from deliberate advice, consultation 
 and composition between men, judging it conve- 
 nient and behovef ul ; there being no impossibility 
 in nature considered by itself, but that men might 
 have lived without any public regiment." 2 
 
 The so-called contract theory, in its day, had 
 famous supporters and exercised a wide influence 
 in political affairs. It assumes at the outset that 
 there exists, in addition to and above all human 
 law, a law of nature into which men were born. 
 That law could not control individual passion and 
 greed and pride, nor did it have visible organisation 
 or coercive power. Indeed it developed inevitably 
 into an intolerable state of war, with every man's 
 hand against every other man. 3 Hobbes advo- 
 cated this contract theory of the origin of civil 
 government, and asserted that in the state of 
 nature every man was in constant conflict and 
 warfare with his neighbour. 
 
 1 Hooker: Ecclesiastical Polity, book i., chap, x., pp. 24, 
 
 25- 
 
 2 Ibid., p. 27. 
 
 3 Sir Henry Maine discusses the "Law of Nature and 
 Equity" in Ancient Law, chap. iii. 
 
68 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 In modification of Hobbes's view, Locke 
 asserted 1 that men in the state of nature are not 
 in absolute anarchy, but are subject to the law 
 of reason which "teaches all mankind, who will 
 but consult it, that being all equal and inde- 
 pendent, no one ought to harm another in his 
 life, health, liberty, or possessions." He viewed 
 political society as constituted by the compact 
 of its original members, a compact that is re- 
 newed from generation to generation expressly 
 or tacitly. By this compact the individual volun- 
 tarily surrendered into the hands of a central 
 or general authority certain rights and powers 
 whereby his remaining liberties and rights might 
 be protected and maintained; that is to say, all 
 the members of the society agreed together 
 mutually to enter into one community and make 
 one body politic. 2 That which makes the com- 
 munity is the agreement to incorporate and act 
 as one body, and so be one distinct common- 
 wealth. 3 
 
 Spinoza founded the right of the de facto govern- 
 ment to rule upon its power to maintain itself 
 against force from any quarter whatsoever. 
 Blackstone maintained that men hold together 
 
 1 On Civil Government, book ii., chap. ii. f par. 6. 
 
 2 Ibid., book ii., chap, viii., par. 95 et seq. 
 
 3 Ibid., book ii., chap, xix., par. an. 
 
The Nature and Origin of the State 69 
 
 in society because they cannot help it. Hobbes's 
 idea of the social contract entered into by the 
 different members of society was one of absolute 
 submission. Rousseau's idea of this contract 
 was that each person put himself under the 
 direction of the will of the community, yet re- 
 mained as free as before. His contract is not 
 between a man and a ruler but between man 
 and man, each and all retaining equal rights 
 politically. 
 
 The force theory needs no refutation for, while 
 it has had very much to do with governments 
 that rise and fall, it has had nothing to do with 
 the general institution of the state. The theory 
 that the state developed from the promiscuous 
 horde does not call for consideration here. It 
 may be stated, however, that the political writ- 
 ers of our own day generally accept Aristotle's 
 view that the state did not develop out of the 
 family, for these two institutions are essentially 
 different. 
 
 Famous and influential as the social and govern- 
 mental contract theories were in their age, and 
 brilliant and persuasive as were the writers who 
 adopted them, "we now know that men lived 
 in civil society, with complicated laws and customs 
 and creeds, for many thousand years before the 
 notion had ever entered anybody's head that 
 
70 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 things could be regulated by contract." 1 "Gov- 
 ernment came, so to say, before the individual 
 and was coeval with his first human instincts." 2 
 
 All through the Middle Ages, and prior to the 
 golden age of the contract theory of the origin 
 of the state, the doctrine of the divine right of 
 kings prevailed. It was held quite generally 
 that two swords had been given to Peter by Christ 
 Himself. The one was to be wielded by the 
 church for the church and the other to be given 
 by the church to a world-emperor and by him to 
 be wielded over the secular realm for the church. 
 Discussion, dispute, and dissension as to the 
 relation properly existing between these two 
 swords continued for centuries. Some held that 
 civil government is evil, and becomes holy only 
 by the authorisation and blessing of the church, 
 that the state needs to be hallowed by the church. 
 Pope Gregory VII, for example, maintained that 
 the state originated in man's pride, worldliness, 
 and ignorance, and is the work of sin and the 
 devil. 3 
 
 Manegold von Lautenbach (1081) declared 
 
 1 Fiske: Civil Government in the United States , p. 188. 
 
 2 Wilson: The State, p. 12. 
 
 3 Poole: Illustrations of Mediceval Thought, p. 229. See 
 Works in Migne, vol. 148. Also see lib. 8, ep. 21, ann. 1080, 
 pp. 456, 457; lib. 4, ep. 2, ann. 1076, p. 243. 
 
The Nature and Origin of the State 71 
 
 that the state is the mere work of man. King- 
 ship does not exist either by nature or merit. 
 The word king is a mere title of office. The power 
 which he has was given him by the people. They 
 made a compact with him and chose him king 
 that he might force evil men to obedience and 
 defend the good from the bad. 1 
 
 The sanctity that had attached in a greater or 
 less degree to kings for centuries belonged to the 
 kingship rather than to the king, to the office 
 rather than to the incumbent. Emperors, kings, 
 and popes alike were made and unmade, crowned 
 and uncrowned, enthroned and dethroned. As 
 the centuries passed, this view became more 
 and more marked. In general the defenders of 
 civil government throughout the Middle Ages 
 contended that the two swords are distinct and 
 independent powers, both instituted by God Him- 
 self. This doctrine, century after century, ' ' fought 
 a battle for the principle that the imperium, 
 like the sacerdotium, proceeds immediately from 
 God (imperium a Deo) and therefore depends from 
 God and not from the church (imperium non de- 
 pendet ab ecclesia). 2 Through all the discussion, 
 there was the general admission on the part of 
 
 1 Sullivan: The Antecedents of the Declaration of Independ- 
 ence, i., 76, 77. 
 
 2 Gierke: Political Theories of the Middle Age, pp. 16, 17. 
 
72 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 the church that the origin of the state is mediately 
 divine, and the general claim on the part of the 
 state that its origin is immediately divine. Thus, 
 with both parties, God is either the direct or 
 indirect source of all civil authority and govern- 
 ment. He uses His representatives, His creatures, 
 to carry out His will. The same rule would apply 
 to the petty local post as well as to the imperial 
 throne. The Electors of the Holy Roman Empire, 
 the princes or the people of any country, casting 
 votes for their emperor or king were viewed as 
 instruments in the hands of God for carrying 
 out His government in the world. But however 
 certain men were that God was the ultimate 
 cause or origin of the state, this cause fell back 
 into the position of a causa remota working through 
 human agency. They introduced as the more 
 proximate cause the political nature implanted 
 by God in man. "More and more decisively was 
 expressed the opinion that the very union of men 
 in a political bond was an act of rational, human 
 will. Occasionally there may appear the notion 
 that the state was an institution which was 
 founded as other human institutions (e.g., mon- 
 asteries or colleges) were founded, by certain 
 definite founders, either in peaceful wise or by 
 some act of violence; but, in the main, there was 
 a general inclination towards the hypothesis of 
 
The Nature and Origin of the State 73 
 
 some original, creative, act of will of the whole 
 uniting community. " 1 
 
 The doctrine of the divine right of kings, as it 
 is commonly termed, asserts the inherent right 
 of the state to exist, and that the civil authorities 
 no less than the ecclesiastical are ordained of 
 God. In other words, the power of the prince 
 comes immediately from God, not mediately 
 through pope or church. The ruler, or the state 
 he represents, is accountable only to God, and 
 not to any earthly power. 2 Sir Frederick Pollock 
 asserts that this doctrine of divine right has no 
 merit to modern eyes, that it is not rational, not 
 ingenious, not even ancient. 3 
 
 Turning now to the teaching and argument of 
 Martin Luther on the origin of the state, we find 
 that in his tract on Secular Authority* he maintains 
 that the state exists by God's will and institution ; 
 for the Apostle Paul writes: "Let every soul be 
 subject unto the higher powers. For there is no 
 power but of God : the powers that be are ordained 
 of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, 
 
 Gierke: Political Theories of the Middle Age, p. 89. 
 
 2 Figgis: Studies of Political Thought from Gerson to Grotius, 
 pp. 71, 72. 
 
 3 Pollock: An Introduction to the History of the Science of 
 Politics, p. 65. 
 
 * Von weltlicher Oberkeit, wie weit man ihr Gehorsam schuldig 
 sei (1523). Weimar ed., n Band, 229 et seq. 
 
74 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that 
 resist shall receive to themselves damnation." 1 
 The Apostle Peter exhorts: "Submit yourselves 
 to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: 
 whether it be to the king, as supreme, or unto gov- 
 ernors, as unto them that are sent by him for the 
 punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them 
 that do well. ' ' 2 The right of the sword has existed 
 since the beginning of the world. When Cain 
 killed his brother Abel, he was so fearful of being 
 put to death himself that God laid a special 
 prohibition thereupon that no one should kill 
 him, which fear he would not have had had he 
 not seen and heard from Adam that murderers 
 should be put to death. Further, after the flood, 
 God repeated and confirmed it in explicit lan- 
 guage, when he declared: "Whoso sheddeth man's 
 blood, by man shall his blood be shed." 3 This 
 law was ratified later by the law of Moses: "But 
 if a man come presumptuously upon his neigh- 
 bour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him 
 from mine altar, that he may die"; 4 and yet 
 again: "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, 
 hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, 
 wound for wound, stripe for stripe." 5 
 
 1 Romans xiii., i, 2. 3 Genesis ix., 6. 
 
 2 i Peter ii., 13, 14. 4 Exodus xxi., 14. 
 
 s Exodus xxi., 23-25. 
 
The Nature and Origin of the State 75 
 
 Christ confirmed it also when He said to Peter 
 in the garden: "All they that take the sword shall 
 perish with the sword." 1 The words of Christ: 
 "But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil" 2 ; 
 "Love your enemies, ... do good to them that 
 hate you" 3 ; and similar passages, having great 
 weight, might seem to indicate that Christians 
 under the Gospel should not have a worldly 
 sword; but the human race is to be divided into 
 two classes, one belonging to the kingdom of 
 God and the other to the kingdom of the world. 
 To the first class belong all true believers in 
 Christ and under Christ, for Christ is king and 
 Lord in the kingdom of God. 4 These people need 
 no worldly sword or law. If the world were made 
 up of true Christians, it would need no prince, king, 
 or lord, no sword or law, for they have the Holy 
 Ghost in their hearts who suffer wrong gladly 
 and themselves do wrong to no one. There is no 
 need of quarrel or contention, of court or punish- 
 ment. St. Paul says: "The law is not made for a 
 righteous man, but for the lawless and disobe- 
 dient, for the ungodly and for sinners" 5 ; for the 
 righteous man of himself does everything that 
 
 * Matthew xxvi., 52. 2 Ibid., v., 38, 39. 
 
 3 Ibid., v., 44. 
 
 4 Psalm ii., 6, "und die ganze Schrift. " 
 
 5 / Timothy i., 9. 
 
76 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 the law demands and more; but the unrighteous 
 do nothing right, and they therefore need the 
 law to teach, constrain, and compel them to do 
 right. A good tree requires no instruction or law 
 that it may bring forth good fruit, but its nature 
 causes it to bear fruit after its kind. Thus are 
 all Christians so fashioned through the Spirit 
 and faith that they do right naturally, more than 
 man could teach them with all laws. All those 
 who are not Christians in this particular sense 
 belong to the kingdom of the world. Inasmuch 
 as there are few who are true Christians in faith 
 and life, God established, in addition to the king- 
 dom of God, another rule that of temporal power 
 or civil government, and gave it the sword to 
 compel the wicked to be orderly. It is for this 
 worldly estate that law is given. Christ rules 
 without law, alone through the Spirit, but worldly 
 government protects the peace with the sword. 
 Likewise, true Christians, although not in need 
 of it for themselves, nevertheless render cheerful 
 obedience to this government, through love for 
 the others who do need it. A Christian himself 
 may wield the sword, when called upon, to main- 
 tain peace among men and to punish wrong. 
 This authority, which is God's handmaid, as 
 St. Paul says, is as necessary and good, as other 
 
 worldly callings. 4 God therefore instituted two 
 | 
 
The Nature and Origin of the State 77 
 
 regiments or governments, the spiritual which, 
 through the Holy Ghost under Christ makes 
 Christian and pious people, and the worldly or 
 temporal which warns the non-Christians and the 
 wicked that they must maintain external peace. 
 We must clearly distinguish between these two 
 powers and let them remain, the one that 
 makes pious, the other that makes for external 
 peace and protects against wickedness. , Neither 
 one is sufficient in the world without the other, 
 for without the spiritual estate of Christ no one 
 can be good before God through the worldly 
 estate. Where civil government alone rulesT 
 there would be hypocrisy, though its laws were 
 like God's commandments themselves, for with- 
 out the Holy Spirit in the heart none can be 
 pious, whatever good works he may perform. 
 Where the spiritual estate rules over land and 
 people, there will be unbridled wickedness and 
 an opportunity for all kinds of villainy, for the 
 common world cannot accept or understand it. 
 But, it may be said, if then Christians do not 
 need the temporal sword or law, why does St. 
 Paul say to all Christians: "Let every soul be 
 subject unto the higher powers"? 1 In reply to 
 this, it is to be said again, that Christians among 
 themselves and by and for themselves require no 
 
 1 Romans xiii., i. 
 
78 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 law or sword, for to them they are not necessary 
 or useful. But because a true Christian on earth 
 lives for and serves not himself but his neighbour, 
 so he also, from the nature of his spirit, does 
 that that he himself does not need, but that is 
 useful and necessary to his neighbour. The sword 
 is a great and necessary utility to the whole world 
 for the maintenance of the peace, the punishment 
 of wrong, and the restraint of the wicked. So 
 the Christian pays tribute and tax, honours civil 
 authority, serves, assists and does everything he 
 can to maintain that authority with honour and 
 -fear. 
 
 In his Address to the German Nobility ^ Luther 
 asserts that the temporal power is a fellow-mem- 
 ber of the Christian body, and although it has a 
 bodily work, it is nevertheless of spiritual estate. 
 In this appeal, and elsewhere as well, he makes a 
 clear distinction as will be shown in another 
 chapter between legitimate and illegitimate, be- 
 tween constitutional and unconstitutional admin- 
 istration or government, declaring that these may 
 be open to question, investigation, and correction. 
 It is sufficient at this point to note that he main- 
 tains that the state is a necessity to man, that it 
 
 * An den christlichen Adel deutscher Nation von des christ- 
 lichen Standes Besserung (1520). Weimar ed., 6 Band, 381 
 et seq. 
 
The Nature and Origin of the State 79 
 
 has existed from the beginnings of the race, and 
 that it i.e., not any one particular state, nor any 
 one particular government or form of government, 
 but the state is as necessary a part of the divine 
 plan or economy for the benefit of the external 
 life of man in society as the institution of the j 
 church and the proclamation of the Gospel is a 
 necessary part of that same divine plan for the 
 benefit and the salvation of the immortal soul. 
 The civil government, therefore, deserves and 
 demands our loyalty and obedience within its 
 legitimate jurisdiction as truly as the church has 
 a right to similar loyalty and obedience within 
 its sphere. 
 
 Luther absolutely severs the state from any * 
 origin from or dependence upon the church. 
 Though the spiritual significance of the state was 
 yet dark to him, he presented the moral or ethical 
 nature of the state with faithful emphasis. 1 Back 
 of all human instrumentalities he saw the divine 
 hand controlling, in any event permitting, the 
 various operations of states and of peoples as of 
 individuals. It is an easy thing, he wrote to the 
 insurgent peasants of Swabia in 1525, for the 
 Lord God to cast empire and principality here 
 
 * Bluntschli : Geschichte der neueren Statswissenschaft, All- 
 gemeines Statsrecht und Politik seit dem 16 Jahrhundert bis 
 zur Gegenwart, pp. 58-61. 
 
8o Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 and there. Now He gives an empire to a wicked 
 knave, taking it from a pious man, sometimes 
 through the treachery of evil men, sometimes 
 through inheritance. He has power in all things 
 among men to give them to whom He will. 1 
 
 In his explanation of the Fourth Command- 
 ment, 2 Luther includes all who are in the service 
 of the state, from electors down to members of 
 town councils, as among those who are to be 
 feared, respected, and obeyed because they bear 
 the " sword of the Lord," and quotes the Old 
 Testament law: "Thou shalt not revile the gods 
 [judges], nor curse the ruler of thy people." 3 
 
 We have yet another presentation of the views 
 of Luther and his associates in an historic docu- 
 ment written by Melanchthon and presented to 
 Charles V at the Imperial Diet held in Augsburg 
 in 1530, the first creed of Christendom that sets 
 forth the origin, the nature, and the separate 
 jurisdiction of the state as distinct from the 
 church. The theory of the nature and origin of 
 the state as then and there expressed is main- 
 tained to-day by hundreds of millions in the 
 
 1 Bluntschli: Geschichte der neueren Statswissenschaft, All- 
 gemeines Statsrecht und Politik seit dem 16 Jahrhundert bis 
 zur Gegenwart, p. 68 
 
 2 Die zehn Gebote dem Volk zu Wittenberg gepredigt. Das 
 vierte Gebot (1516). Walch ed. , iii. , 1222 et seq. 
 
 * Exodus xxii., 28. 
 
The Nature and Origin of the State 81 
 
 most advanced nations and freest governments 
 on the face of the earth. l This document declares 
 that legitimate civil enactments are good works 
 of God; that it is lawful for Christians to hold 
 civil offices, to pronounce judgment and decide 
 cases according to the existing laws of the country 
 or realm; to inflict just punishment, wage just 
 wars, and serve in them; to make lawful contracts, 
 hold property; to make oath when required by 
 the magistrate; to marry and be married. It 
 expressly condemns those who forbid to Christians 
 the performance of these civil duties. It likewise 
 condemns those who make evangelical perfection 
 consist not in the fear of God and in faith, but 
 in the abandonment of all civil duties. It de- 
 clares that Christians ought necessarily yield 
 obedience to their civil officers and laws unless 
 they command something sinful, in which case 
 they ought to obey God rather than men (Acts 
 v., 29). 2 
 
 i The origin of the state as an institution is too frequently, 
 unfortunately, confounded with the origin of particular 
 states, particular forms of government, or particular rulers. 
 They must be carefully distinguished. The failure to do so 
 leads more than one writer astray in the presentation of 
 Luther's teaching of the divine origin of the state. See 
 Willoughby: An Examination of the Nature of the State, pp. 
 48, 50. 
 
 * The Augsburg Confession, Article xvi., Walch ed., xvi., 
 83 1 et seq. 
 6 
 
82 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 Morley asserts that : 
 
 The statement that while the constitution of man 
 is the work of nature, that of the state is the work 
 of art, is as misleading as the opposite statement 
 that governments are not made, but grow, and the 
 truth lies between them, in such propositions as that 
 institutions owe their existence and development to 
 deliberate human effort, working in accordance with 
 circumstances naturally fixed both in human charac- 
 ter and in the external field of its activity. 1 
 
 The government of the state may be imperfect, 
 as may be likewise the government of the church. 
 Either power may be despotic on the one hand, 
 or democratic on the other hand; but the state 
 is the one earthly institution in the maintenance 
 and advancement of which every class, indeed 
 every individual, may well have the deepest 
 interest. Indeed "there is no existing institution 
 which can claim from the bible so distinctly 
 sacred a character." 2 
 
 " For those who believe that man was created 
 in the divine image, there is always the funda- 
 mental belief that the impulse to social life and 
 to the formation and development of the state 
 comes from Him, and that He is therefore con- 
 
 1 Morley: Rousseau, ii., 179, 180. 
 
 2 Stanley : Essays chiefly on Questions of Church and State, 
 
 P- 35 1 - 
 
The Nature and Origin of the State 83 
 
 cerned with all things pertaining to order and 
 government." 1 
 
 Luther teaches us that the state is natural and 
 necessary to the human race and that, as such, 
 it is a part of the divine economy for man. 2 This 
 being true, it has always existed and must continue 
 to exist to the end of time. Nations come and 
 go, kingdoms rise and fall, forms of government 
 and administration suffer change; but the state, 
 as an institution, is permanent and universal. 
 
 The state, indeed, is as natural and necessary 
 
 1 Prall: The State and the Church, pp. 96, 97. 
 
 2 "It would be peculiarly improper to omit," said George 
 Washington in his Inaugural Speech to Congress in 1789, 
 "in this first official act, my fervent supplications to that 
 Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides 
 in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can 
 supply every human defect, that his benediction may con- 
 secrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the 
 United States a government instituted by themselves for 
 these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument 
 employed in its administration to execute, with success, the 
 functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage 
 to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure 
 myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my 
 own, nor those of my fellow citizens at large less than either. 
 No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invis- 
 ible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the 
 people of the United States. Every step by which they have 
 advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems 
 to have been distinguished by some token of providential 
 agency. " Bryan: The World's Famous Orations, viii., 80, 81. 
 
84 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 for men in association as food is for the man 
 individually. As there is one common will in 
 the individual, directing and controlling the 
 various members of the body for there could be 
 no peace or harmony otherwise, but constant 
 conflict and confusion, so there must be and, 
 in view of this natural necessity, there is one 
 common governing will among men who live 
 within touch of one another with that power to 
 regulate and control. The form of its govern- 
 ment and the manner of its administration are 
 determined by men, but the state itself is a human 
 necessity arising immediately upon the creation 
 of man by the divine hand. Hunger and thirst 
 cannot well be denominated as of human origin 
 or institution, although they belong to human 
 experience; neither, in this sense, may it be said 
 of the state. The origin of government belongs 
 to the secrets of the unknown past; but no people 
 have ever been known to the world who did not 
 recognise the necessity of a supreme authority 
 or government, to which they owed allegiance 
 and obedience. "Wherever men are found they 
 live under some form of government, however 
 rude and imperfect. In all parts and in all ages 
 of the world they have seen the necessity of some 
 power to protect the weak and restrain the strong, 
 and have therefore set up a supreme authority 
 
The Nature and Origin of the State 85 
 
 for the common welfare." 1 The individual is 
 born in the state politically, as he is born in the 
 family. The individual and the state belong as 
 much to nature as the whole created universe. 
 "The origin of both is an integral part of the 
 mystery of the universe that has baffled the 
 endeavours of uninspired finite reason to solve." 2 
 
 1 Peterman: Elements of Civil Government, p. 158. 
 
 2 M'Kechnie: The State and the Individual, p. 63. 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATE 
 
 A. Viewed Internally 
 
 OOVEREIGNTY is an essential attribute of 
 *J every independent state. It is the supreme 
 dignity, power, and authority of the state. As 
 Bluntschli defines it : " The state is the embodiment 
 and personification of the national power. This 
 power, considered in its highest dignity and 
 greatest force, is called sovereignty." * The word 
 sovereignty was first used in this sense, it is 
 commonly asserted, by the Frenchman Jean 
 Bodin in the third quarter of the sixteenth century. 
 He declared that sovereignty is the absolute 
 and perpetual power of a state. 2 A later authority 
 on the subject expresses the notion of sovereignty 
 in these words : 
 
 Bluntschli: The Theory of the State, p. 463. 
 2 "Puissance absolue et perpetuelle d'une r6publique. " 
 Bodin: De la Republique, i., i. 
 
 86 
 
The Sovereignty of the State 87 
 
 If a determinate human superior, not in a habit of 
 obedience to a like superior, receive habitual obedi- 
 ence from the bulk of a given society, that deter- 
 minate superior is sovereign in that society, and the 
 society (including the superior) is a society political 
 and independent. ... In order that a given society 
 may form a society political and independent, the two 
 distinguishing marks which I have mentioned above 
 must unite. The generality of the given society 
 must be in the habit of obedience to a determinate 
 and common superior; while that determinate person, 
 or determinate body of persons, must not be habitu- 
 ally obedient to a determinate person or body. 1 
 
 Sovereignty, as understood in our age, implies 
 absolute political power within the state, 
 supreme power to regulate all affairs within the 
 state, 2 and yet itself subject to no authority. It 
 is something more than a mere collection or 
 aggregation of all the various particular powers 
 of the state, such as levying taxes, making war 
 and peace, and maintaining various departments 
 of the public service. It includes all these, but 
 represents still more. 3 It is not only the sum 
 
 1 Austin: Lectures on Jurisprudence, i., 117, 118. 
 
 2 Professor Huxley says: "It follows that no limit is or 
 can be theoretically set to state interference. " 
 
 3 Willoughby: An Examination of the Nature of the State, 
 pp. 194, 195. 
 
88 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 of all the parts, but it is the life of the 
 state itself, properly regulating and harmonis- 
 ing these various parts. It is not only the 
 various members as of the human body, sepa- 
 rate and distinct, but it is the sum of all of 
 them in vital totality, each in proper place for 
 the performance of its appropriate functions; 
 for the life of the body is much more than the sum 
 of its various members in and of themselves. An 
 earlier use of the term, in the Middle Ages, was 
 applied to the highest authority in any given 
 branch of governmental administration, as for 
 example, the supreme court of a nation. * In the 
 course of time, however, the term came to be 
 applied to the supreme will and power of the 
 state as a unitary totality. 
 
 Under feudalism, sovereignty was in a large 
 measure associated with the ownership or posses- 
 sion of territory. 2 Barons decided property titles 
 and private rights by the custom and the decisions 
 of their own courts, levied tolls, made war, and 
 frequently coined money. 3 As further territory 
 was secured by war, inheritance, marriage, con- 
 tract or otherwise, the same practically sovereign 
 powers were exercised over the extended estate, 
 
 Bluntschli: The Theory of the State, p. 463. 
 2 Maine: The Ancient Law, p. 102. 
 'Wilson: The State, pp. 177, 178. 
 
 
The Sovereignty of the State 89 
 
 and sovereignty in the barony developed into 
 sovereignty of the realm. 
 
 Sovereignty, again, is variously located, by 
 different writers, in the people at large, that is, the 
 majority of the unorganised mass of the people; 
 in the assembled citizens of the state; in the peo- 
 ple, unorganised, but capable of organisation; in 
 the state or nation; and in the ruler. 1 
 
 A distinction is also to be made between political 
 sovereignty and legal sovereignty. The political 
 sovereign is the "intangible source of all govern- 
 ment: the legal sovereign is simply that part of 
 the actual machinery of government which is 
 superior to the other parts, having legal control 
 over the rest, and being itself subject to none. 
 The latter is only a particular and perhaps tempo- 
 rary embodiment of the former which is perpetual 
 and inalienable. " 2 The legal sovereign is different 
 in every state, for it is to be found in that person 
 or organ in whom is placed by law the right to 
 speak the last word. The King of Great Britain 
 is that country's titular sovereign, but the king 
 in parliament (parliament and the king together) 
 is the legal sovereign. "Its formal decisions 
 embodied in statutes are legally irresponsible, 
 irresistible, and irreversible except by parliament 
 
 1 Bluntschli: The Theory of the State, pp. 467^-474. 
 
 2 M'Kechnie: The State and the Individual, p. 132. 
 
90 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 itself." i De Lolme, who has been quoted by 
 nearly every succeeding writer on the powers of 
 parliament, declared: "It is a fundamental prin- 
 ciple with English lawyers that parliament can 
 do everything but make a woman a man, and a 
 man a woman." As a matter of fact, however, 
 parliament does not and may not be expected to 
 do anything contrary to the cherished principles 
 and privileges of the people, for did they do so, 
 their constituencies would return other members 
 to the House of Commons more in accord with 
 their own will, and parliament would be changed. 
 The sovereignty of parliament is thus limited 
 de facto. 2 The political or actual sovereign of 
 Great Britain, therefore, is the people back of the 
 parliament. 
 
 The various separate states of a confederation 
 may be virtually sovereign. The constitution of 
 Switzerland, for example, declares: "The cantons 
 are sovereign, so far as their sovereignty is not 
 limited by the federal constitution; and, as such, 
 they exercise all the rights which are not delegated 
 to the federal government." 3 The constitution 
 of the United States provides that: " This consti- 
 
 M'Kechnie; The State and the Individual, p. 127. 
 
 2 Wilson: The State, p. 600. 
 
 3 Constitution of the Swiss Confederation, Chap, i., Art. 3. 
 See Dodd: Modern Constitutions, ii., 257. 
 
The Sovereignty of the State 91 
 
 '* 
 
 tution, and the laws of the United States which 
 shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties 
 made, or which shall be made, under the authority 
 of the United States, shall be the supreme law of 
 the land; and the judges in every state shall be 
 bound thereby, anything in the constitution or 
 laws of any state to the contrary notwithstand- 
 ing." * Within certain limits, the various states 
 of the United States, like the Swiss cantons, are 
 possessed of supreme or sovereign power. 
 
 It is difficult to reconcile this division of power 
 for sovereignty is necessarily unitary and in- 
 divisible except by locating sovereignty in the 
 combined will of the whole. Sovereign power 
 implies unity. Division implies separation, dis- 
 agreement, weakness, paralysis. It is said of us, 
 therefore, that ' * sovereignty rests in its entirety 
 with that not very determinate body of persons, 
 the people of the United States, the powers of 
 sovereignty resting with the state and federal 
 authorities by delegation from the people." 2 
 
 Bodin already declared sovereignty to be 
 indivisible. 3 Rousseau asserted: "Though power 
 
 ' Constitution of the United States of America, Article VI. 
 
 2 Wilson: The State, p. 610. 
 
 3 According to Bodin, sovereignty, the highest power in a 
 state, is subject to no laws but is itself the maker and master 
 of them. Whether it reside in one person or in a number of 
 
92 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 may be divided, will cannot. " The feudal system 
 and the currency of the principles of natural law 
 had excluded, in the Middle Ages, the doctrine 
 of the state's unlimited and indivisible authority 
 over its own territory. 
 
 The mediaeval system of Europe [says Sir Frederick 
 Pollock] was not a system of states in our sense or 
 in the Greek sense. It was a collection of groups, 
 held together in the first instance by ties of personal 
 dependence and allegiance, and connected among 
 themselves by personal relations of the same kind 
 on a magnified scale. Lordship and homage, from 
 the emperor down to the humblest feudal tenant, 
 were the links in the chain of steel which saved the 
 world from being dissolved into a chaos of jarring 
 fragments. . . . The old unity of the clan had dis- 
 appeared, and it was only gradually and slowly, 
 as kingdoms were consolidated by strong rulers, that 
 the newer unity of the nation took its place. 1 
 
 Once discover where that political power lies 
 that is all-controlling and not controlled, that 
 is permanent, independent, and supreme, and 
 
 persons, it is above all law, incapable of limitation or divi- 
 sion, and has an absolute claim to the obedience of all its 
 subjects, irrespective of the justice or policy of its acts. 
 Bryce : Studies in History \ind Jurisprudence, pp. 532, 533. 
 Pollock: An Introduction to the History of the Science of 
 Politics, pp. 47, 48. 
 
The Sovereignty of the State 93 
 
 you find the sovereign. 1 It regulates all matters 
 between man and man and between man and 
 the state. The authority of the state 
 
 is superior to all other humanly established authori- 
 ties; and all political powers exercised by other 
 individuals or bodies of individuals are ultimately 
 derived from it. It alone has the power of express- 
 ing a command, or of determining the validity of 
 an existing rule with such absolute authority that 
 no recourse is admitted to another power, either in 
 search for the authority upon which such order or 
 command is based, or for the ultimate determination 
 of the wisdom or moral propriety of the actions so 
 ordered. The state is thus supreme not only as 
 giving the ultimate validity to all law, but as itself 
 determining the scope of its own powers, and itself 
 deciding what interests shall be subjected to its 
 regulation. 2 
 
 This is that political sovereignty that has no 
 limit within its own territory but that of incapacity 
 and none without its bounds but that of foreign 
 power. It must be able to maintain and support 
 
 1 Blackstone declares that, whatever form the government 
 may assume, "there is and must be a supreme, irresistible, 
 absolute, uncontrolled authority, in which the jura summa 
 imperii or the rights of sovereignty reside." Pollock: An 
 Introduction to the History of the Science of Politics, p. 80. 
 
 2 Willoughby: An Examination of the Nature of the State, 
 pp. 192, 193. 
 
94 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 itself, for it is self-dependent, if it be independent. 
 As Jellinek expresses it: "The state finds the 
 ground for its own rights and duties in itself." 1 
 In the last resort, sovereignty resides in the 
 person or persons possessing the power perma- 
 nently to carry their political will into effect, 
 despite the opposition or adverse influence of any 
 other power. That is to say, it is will, not force, 
 that forms the basis of the state. 2 
 
 It has been shown that at the time of the elec- 
 tion of Charles V as Emperor of the Holy Roman 
 Empire of the German nation, Germany was 
 what might be termed a confederacy, consisting 
 of a number of virtually sovereign states, 3 a 
 larger number of smaller political powers and 
 territories, free cities, etc., generally having their 
 legislative assemblies, courts, and rulers, as did 
 the empire itself. Yet, with the confusion that 
 reigned, the constantly changing jurisprudence, 
 and either the absence of permanent courts of 
 appeal, or inability to enforce their decisions, it is 
 
 1 Jellinek: Gesetz und Verordnung, p. 196. 
 
 2 Green : Lectures on the Principles of Political Obligation, p. 
 121 et seq. M'Kechnie: The State and the Individual, p. 69. 
 
 3 The German electors were able to maintain sovereignty 
 in their own dominions from the middle of the fourteenth 
 century, based on the provisions of the Golden Bull, be- 
 cause they exercised supreme authority in them as their 
 proper right. Bluntschli: The Theory of the State, p. 465. 
 
The Sovereignty of the State 95 
 
 difficult to locate the sovereignty of that age and 
 people. In many matters the electors possessed 
 sovereign powers in their own respective terri- 
 tories. In other matters, the Imperial Diet, 
 composed of three colleges, with the emperor, 
 possessed legal sovereignty. Actual or political 
 sovereignty, then as now, was to be found not in 
 the legal expression of the will of the people 
 through their representatives, but the power 
 back of the representatives supporting them in 
 some measures and opposing them in others. 
 The mark of sovereignty is to be seen not alone in 
 the will of the people as definitely expressed in 
 formal action but in that same will acquiescing 
 in political measures and conditions. The sover- 
 eign power may passively permit, as well as 
 positively command or prohibit. 
 
 With this general view of the sovereignty of 
 the state, so far as it concerns its own territory 
 and its own people, we now turn to Martin Luther's 
 teachings as to the authority of the state within 
 these limits. Ecclesiastical courts, with ultimate 
 appeal to Rome, had jurisdiction in his day over 
 all cases involving ecclesiastics, including lay 
 members of the various church orders and their 
 families. It had been maintained for centuries 
 that the civil courts of the land had no juris- 
 diction in any such matters. But Luther declared 
 
96 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 that the law of the land properly covers every 
 one within the bounds of the kingdom, including 
 clergy as well as laity, thus abolishing the so- 
 called "benefit of clergy." To him, the state 
 alone possesses coercive authority. His view of 
 the church and ecclesiastical authority absolutely 
 excludes every extension of that authority, as 
 divinely ordained, to the sphere of temporal, 
 political, or civil life. 
 
 In his Appeal to the German Nobility he says 1 : 
 
 Forasmuch as the temporal power has been ordained 
 by God for the punishment of the bad and the pro- 
 tection of the good, therefore we must let it do its 
 duty throughout the whole Christian body, without 
 respect of persons, whether it strike popes, bishops, 
 priests, monks, nuns, or whoever it may be. If it were 
 sufficient reason for fettering the temporal power that 
 it is inferior among the offices of Christianity to the 
 offices of priest or confessor, or to the spiritual estate 
 if this were so, then we ought to restrain tailors, 
 cobblers, masons, carpenters, cooks, cellarmen, Deas- 
 ants, and all secular workmen, from providing the 
 pope or bishops, priests and monks, with shoes, 
 clothes, houses, or victuals, or from paying them 
 tithes. But if these laymen are allowed to do their 
 
 i An den christlichen Adel deutscher Nation von des christ- 
 lichen Standes Besserung (1520), Weimar ed., 6 Band, 381 et 
 seq. Wace and Buchheim: Luther's Primary Works, p. 161 
 et seq. 
 
The Sovereignty of the State 97 
 
 work without restraint, what do the Romanist scribes 
 mean by their laws ? They mean that they withdraw 
 themselves from the operation of temporal Christian 
 power, simply in order that they may be free to do 
 evil, and thus fulfil what St. Peter said: "There 
 shall be false teachers among you, . . . And through 
 covetousness shall they with feigned words make 
 merchandise of you." 1 Therefore the temporal 
 Christian power must exercise its office without let or 
 hindrance, without considering whom it may strike, 
 whether pope or bishop, or priest. Whoever is 
 guilty, let him suffer for it. 
 
 Whatever the ecclesiastical law has said in opposi- 
 tion to this is merely the invention of Romanist 
 arrogance. For this is what St. Paul says to all 
 Christians: "Let every soul" (I presume including 
 the popes) "be subject unto the higher powers, . . . 
 do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of 
 the same ... for he beareth not the sword in vain; 
 for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute 
 wrath upon him that doeth evil." 2 Also St. Peter: 
 " Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the 
 Lord's sake, ... for so is the will of God." 3 He 
 has also foretold that men would come who would 
 despise government,* as has come to pass through 
 ecclesiastical law. 
 
 Although the work of the temporal power relates 
 to the body, it yet belongs to the spiritual estate. 
 
 1 2 Peter ii., i, 3. 3 / Peter ii., 13, 15. 
 
 2 Romans xiii., 1-4. * 2 Peter ii. 
 
 7 
 
98 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 Therefore it must do its duty without let or hin- 
 drance upon all members of the whole body, to pun- 
 ish or urge, as guilt may deserve, or need may require, 
 without respect of pope, bishops, or priests, let them 
 threaten or excommunicate as they will. That is 
 why a guilty priest is deprived of his priesthood 
 before being given over to the secular arm; whereas 
 this would not be right, if the secular sword had not 
 authority over him already by divine ordinance. 
 
 It is, indeed, past bearing that the spiritual law 
 should esteem so highly the liberty, life, and property 
 of the clergy, as if laymen were not as good spiritual 
 Christians, or not equally members of the church. 
 Why should your body, life, goods, and honour be 
 free, and not mine, seeing that we are equal as Christ- 
 ians, and have received alike baptism, faith, spirit, 
 and all things? If a priest is killed, the country is 
 laid under an interdict; why not also if a peasant is 
 killed? Whence comes this great difference among 
 equal Christians? Simply from human laws and 
 inventions. 
 
 Luther thus emphatically declares that every 
 person living within the boundaries of any given 
 state is subject to its laws whether he be an 
 ecclesiastic or a layman, and is equally entitled to 
 its protection, whether he be a member of the 
 church or a heretic. Status in the church does 
 not affect or determine status in the state. The 
 church has a right to determine ecclesiastical 
 
The Sovereignty of the State 99 
 
 status, but it has no right to determine civil 
 status. Almost four centuries have passed since 
 Luther made his argument, but it is as true and 
 as applicable to-day as it was then. The sover- 
 eignty of the state, in its accepted significance, im- 
 plies the subjection under it of every individual 
 within its borders. 
 
 The views of a later writer, much to the same 
 effect, have been expressed thus: 
 
 The power and the right of the state extend to 
 the regulation of all actions within it, whether these 
 be called civil or sacred. Claims such as the church 
 of Rome makes to determine infallibly what is right 
 and lawful for kings and states and their subjects 
 to do, and what it is unlawful for them to do, Spinoza 
 regards as not only inconsistent with the free exercise 
 of that reason which is God's best gift to man, but 
 also as fatal to the peace, prosperity, and indepen- 
 dence of any state that allows such dictation from 
 without. 1 
 
 "The modern state," says Bluntschli, "does 
 not consider religion a condition of legal status. 
 ... It feels itself independent, even as against 
 the church . . . and maintains its supremacy 
 even over the church. It recognises no superior 
 
 1 Duff: Spinoza's Political and Ethical Philosophy, pp. 492, 
 493- 
 
\ 
 
 ioo Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 status in the clergy, abolishes their privileges and 
 immunities, and extends the authority of law 
 over all classes equally." 1 
 
 The Middle Ages accepted the teaching of the 
 religious duty of obedience to the powers that 
 be, as set forth in Romans xiii and i Peter ii, 
 but the common interpretation of these texts 
 was that ''the powers that be" were the ecclesias- 
 tical authorities, and that obedience belonged, 
 in the last resort, to the Pope of Rome. Not 
 only was resistance against the king allowed when 
 authorised from Rome, but it was sometimes 
 ordered from there. It was Luther who insisted 
 that this obedience in all political and secular 
 affairs is due the civil ruler, and that the church 
 possesses no coercive authority whatever. 2 
 
 Having his high conception of the origin and 
 nature of the state, Luther expressed himself 
 in the strongest terms, consistently and persist-/ 
 ently, on behalf of absolute obedience on the 
 part of the subject to the state, so far as its/re- 
 quirements were constitutional or legal, arm not 
 clearly forbidden by the word of GodXln a 
 sermon on the Fourth Commandment, 3 preached 
 
 1 Bluntschli: The Theory of the State, pp. 58, 59. 
 
 2 Figgis: Studies of Political Thought from Gerson to Grotius, 
 p. 66. 
 
 3 Walch ed., iii., 1222 et seq. 
 
The Sovereignty of the State 101 
 
 at Wittenberg in 1516, he speaks of the duty of 
 obedience to civil authority, which is to be feared 
 because it wields the sword of the Lord. The 
 law says: "Thou shalt not revile the gods [judges], 
 nor curse the ruler of thy people." 1 Even in the 
 case of taxation and oppression, the subjects are 
 to bear it not otherwise than as the hand of the 
 Lord which bears heavily upon them on account 
 of their sins and shortcomings. 
 
 In his explanation of the Fourth Commandment, 
 as given in his catechism, Luther says God gives 
 and preserves to us through civil government, 
 as through parents, maintenance, house and home, 
 protection and security; therefore we are under 
 obligations to honour temporal authority and 
 esteem it the dearest treasure and costliest gem 
 on earth. 2 
 
 At another time, Luther discusses the question 
 whether the laws of Moses, or the imperial laws 
 are to be the basis of judgment, in view of the 
 fact that some persons asserted that the imperial 
 laws were unchristian. If the temporal laws, 
 he says, take a position against God in any mat- 
 ter though Luther admits he knows of none 
 the Christian certainly should not be governed 
 
 Exodus xxii., 28. 
 
 2 Der grosse Catechismus (1529): Das vierte Gebot, Du sollst 
 deinen Voter und Mutter ehren. Walch ed., x., 58, 59. 
 
 J 
 
102 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 thereby. But inasmuch as such temporal laws 
 are an external thing, as eating and drinking, 
 clothing, house and court, etc., they do not 
 affect Christians, who are governed by the Spirit 
 of God in accordance with the Gospel. Not the 
 laws of Moses, but the imperial laws, are now in 
 force in the world, he says, and it would not be 
 right to introduce sects and divisions by adopting 
 the law of Moses and ignoring the imperial laws. 
 Faith and love can well remain with and under 
 the imperial laws. Were the emperor and the 
 princes to unite in declaring the law of Moses as 
 in force, then it would be our duty to observe it. 
 Otherwise, however, we should not take up any 
 one law and decry others. 1 
 
 His theory of the duty of obedience is shown 
 by a letter written concerning the revolt of the 
 Danish nobles and the Liibeckers against the 
 reigning Christian II. 2 Assuming, he says, that 
 the King is wrong, the Danes and Liibeckers are 
 constituting themselves judges and over-lords of 
 the King. "Were every one who is right him- 
 self to punish the wrong-doer, what a spectacle 
 
 Bedenken D. Martin Luthers, ob man nach Mose oder 
 kaiserlichen Rechten richten oder urtheilen solle (1524), 
 Walch ed., x., 354~357- 
 
 2 Raumer: Ueber die geschichtliche Entwickelung der Be~ 
 griffe von Recht, Staat und Politik, p. 168. 
 
The Sovereignty of the State 103 
 
 we would have in the world ! Then we would see 
 the servant strike the master, the maid the mis- 
 tress, the child the parents, the scholars the 
 teacher. That would be a praiseworthy state of 
 affairs! What need would there be for law and 
 temporal authority, ordained by God?" 
 
 Luther clearly insists on obedience being ren- 
 dered in all doubtful cases. While roundly denoun- 
 cing rulers, at times, as incapable and unworthy, 1 
 he maintains that the office must be respected 
 and obedience in all legitimate affairs must be 
 rendered. That is to say, an unworthy person 
 holding a post of civil authority must be respected, 
 not necessarily as an individual, but as a represen- 
 tative of the government. In a sermon on Tribute 
 to C&sar, based on the words, " Render therefore 
 unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and 
 unto God the things that are God's," he says: 
 
 With the words of this text Christ praised civil 
 authority, and commanded that men give it what 
 belongs to it. He here clearly confirms civil author- 
 ity, princes, and lords, to whom men are to be obedi- 
 
 "From the beginning of the world," Luther says, "an 
 intelligent prince has been a rare bird, and a pious one a still 
 rarer. They are usually the greatest fools or the worst 
 scoundrels on earth. " Von weltlicher Oberkeit, wie weit 
 man ihr Gehorsam schuldig sei (1523). Weimar ed., n., 
 Band, 229 et seq. 
 
104 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 ent, whoever they may be and whatever they may be, 
 without regard to whether they possess or use the 
 rule and authority righteously or wrongfully. There 
 must be regard only to their power and authority, 
 for it is good, inasmuch as it has been ordained of God 
 (See Romans xiii., i). Civil authority must not be 
 reviled because princes and tyrants may oppress 
 their subjects and misuse their God-given office. 
 They will surely be required to render an account 
 thereof. The abuse of a thing does not make a 
 thing evil that is itself good. A gold chain is good, 
 and is not made worse because it is worn on a har- 
 lot's neck. If a person should destroy my eye with 
 one, would I blame the chain for it? Certainly not. 
 
 In like manner must we endure the authority of 
 the prince. If he misuse or abuse his authority, 
 we are not to entertain a grudge, seek revenge or 
 punishment. Obedience is to be rendered for God's 
 sake, for the ruler is God's representative. However 
 they may tax or exact, we must obey and endure 
 patiently. It will duly appear whether they rule 
 with right or not. 
 
 St. Paul expresses the duty of the subject to civil 
 government beautifully and clearly: "Let every 
 soul be subject unto the higher powers, for there is 
 no power but of God. The powers that be are or- 
 dained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the 
 power, resisteth the ordinance of God : and they that 
 resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For 
 rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. 
 
The Sovereignty of the State 105 
 
 Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do 
 that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the 
 same; for he is the minister of God to thee for good. 
 But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he 
 beareth not the sword in vain; for he is the minister 
 of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that 
 doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, 
 not only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake. For 
 for this cause pay ye tribute also : for they are God's 
 ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. 
 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom 
 tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to 
 whom fear; honour to whom honour." 1 
 
 To this end is civil authority instituted of God, to 
 maintain public peace, which of itself is of greater 
 value than all estate in the entire world. 2 
 
 Spinoza, maintaining a view similar to that 
 of Luther on this point, held, as Professor Duff 
 shows, that "disobedience to a civil order which 
 maintains a stable system of right and duty is 
 never virtuous; nor has any man a right to refuse 
 to recognise a law because he thinks he knows 
 a better end or ideal." 3 
 
 1 Romans xin., 17. 
 
 2 Kirchen-Postille : Am dreiundzwanzigsten ^^ntage nach 
 Trinitatis, Matt, xxii., 15-22: "Gebet dem KalSk-, was des 
 Kaisers 1st, und Gotte, was Gottes ist. " Walch ed., xi., 1802 
 et seq. 
 
 3 Duff: Spinoza's Political and Ethical Philosophy, p. 497. 
 
io6 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 Luther holds that Christians, as members of 
 the state, are bound to take up arms in defence 
 of their rulers, when these are unlawfully attacked ; 
 and when oppressed, or directed to do wrong, they 
 are to maintain an attitude of " passive resist- 
 ance," or " passive obedience," which may mean 
 the same thing; that is, while not openly refusing 
 to obey, and not actively resisting the government, 
 they endure with patience what is forced on them 
 and make the most of it. " Christians may not 
 resist, but suffer, though they shall not approve 
 or serve." 1 They will suffer wrong from the 
 government, but will not do wrong to it or for it. 
 It is only when the civil authority commands the 
 performance of something expressly or explicitly 
 contrary to the word of God that the subject 
 has a right to dispute, oppose, or disobey its 
 authority. 
 
 Von weltlicher Oberkeit, wie weit man ihr Gehorsam schul- 
 dig sei (1523). Weimar ed., n Band, 229 et seq. 
 
CHAPTER V 
 
 THE SOVEREIGNTY OP THE STATE 
 
 B. Viewed Externally 
 
 A NOTHER element of sovereignty is inde- 
 i\ pendence of the authority of any external 
 or foreign influence or power, ecclesiastical or 
 civil 1 ; for no state which is not independent can 
 have a law of its own. 2 "If a state is compelled 
 to recognise the political superiority of another, 
 it loses its sovereignty, and becomes subjected 
 to the sovereignty of the latter." 3 If, upon any 
 single point, however insignificant, the state's 
 own will be not final, but is legally dependent 
 upon the consent of another power, its sovereignty 
 is destroyed. 4 
 
 One of the most marked features of Luther's 
 work was his call for an absolute resistance on 
 
 1 See M'Kechnie: The State and the Individual, p. 129. 
 
 2 See Wilson: The State, p. 609. 
 
 3 Bluntschli: The Theory of the State, p. 475. 
 
 4 Willoughby: An Examination of the Nature of the State, 
 p. 196. 
 
 107 
 
io8 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 the part of the rulers of Germany to foreign inter- 
 ference in their own temporal affairs. It must 
 be borne in mind that it was just at this time 
 that Sylvester Mazzolini de Prierio, the master 
 of the sacred palace, published a work in which 
 he declared that the decision of all controversies 
 belongs to the pope alone, and that the pope is 
 the first of all ecclesiastical princes, the father 
 of all secular rulers, the chief of the world, and 
 essentially the world itself. 1 The same writer 
 elsewhere affirms that the pope is as much superior 
 to the emperor as gold is more precious than lead 2 ; 
 that the pope may elect and depose both emperors 
 and electors, establish and annul positive rights; 
 and that the emperor, though backed by all the 
 laws and nations of Christendom, cannot decide 
 the least thing against the pope's will. This was 
 a voice from the pope's own palace. 3 
 
 In his Appeal to the German Nobility f Luther 
 
 1 "Caput orbis et consequenter orbis totus in virtute. De 
 juridica et irrefragabili veritate Romanse Ecclesiae. " Bibl. 
 Max., 19, cap. 4. 
 
 2 "Papa est imperatore major dignitate plus quam aurum 
 plombo. " De Papa et ejus potestate, p. 371. 
 
 3 D'Aubigne: History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth 
 Century, ii., 116, 117. 
 
 * An den christlichen Adel deutscher Nation von des christ- 
 lichen Standes Besserung (1520). Weimar ed., 6 Band, 381 
 et seq. Waceand Buchheim: Luther's Primary Works, p. 161 
 et seq. 
 
The Sovereignty of the State 109 
 
 goes into a detailed statement of the manner and 
 ways in which the ecclesiastical power of Rome 
 had been interfering with Germany's rights and 
 liberties, as he conceived them. He declared 
 there was neither right nor reason in the exactions 
 and claims of the pope and the Church of Rome 
 over the German people. He says in this appeal : 
 * ' I think Germany now pays more to the pope than 
 it formerly paid to the emperors; nay, some think 
 more than 300,000 guilders are sent from Germany 
 to Rome every year, for nothing whatever; and in 
 return we are scoffed at and put to shame. Do we 
 still wonder why princes, noblemen, cities, founda- 
 tions, convents, and people grow poor? We should 
 rather wonder that we have anything left to eat." 
 In the same appeal, he charges that the popes 
 had been receiving annates (that is, half of the 
 first year's income from every benefice) from all 
 German benefices for more than a century, for 
 the declared purpose of protecting Christendom 
 against the Turks and Infidels, but misappro- 
 priated it for the payment of thousands of posts 
 and offices at Rome. He makes the following 
 assertions and recommendations : 
 
 Whenever there is any pretence of fighting the 
 Turks, they send out some commission for collecting 
 money, and often send out indulgences under the 
 
no Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 same pretext of fighting the Turks. They think 
 we Germans will always remain such great and inveter- 
 ate fools that we will go on giving money to satisfy 
 their unspeakable greed, though we see plainly that 
 neither annates, nor absolution money, nor any 
 other not one farthing goes against the Turks, but 
 all goes into the bottomless sack. They lie and 
 deceive, form and make covenants with us, of which 
 they do not mean to keep one jot. And all this is 
 done in the holy name of Christ and St. Peter. 
 
 This being so, the German nation, the bishops 
 and princes, should remember that they are Christians, 
 and should defend the people, who are committed to 
 their government and protection in, temporal and 
 spiritual affairs, from these ravenous wolves in 
 sheep's clothing, who profess to be shepherds and 
 rulers; and since the annates are so shamefully 
 abused, and the covenants concerning them not 
 carried out, they should not suffer their lands and 
 people to be so piteously and unrighteously flayed and 
 ruined; but by an imperial or national law they should 
 either retain the annates in the country, or abolish 
 them altogether. For since the popes do not keep 
 the covenant, they have no right to the annates. 
 Therefore bishops and princes are bound to punish 
 this thievery and robbery, or prevent it, as justice 
 demands. . . . Even if it were proposed to collect 
 any such treasure for use against the Turks, we should 
 be wise in future, and remember that the German 
 nation is more fitted to take charge of it than the pope, 
 
The Sovereignty of the State in 
 
 seeing that the German nation by itself is able to pro- 
 vide men enough, if the money is forth-coming. . . . 
 Moreover, the year has been divided among the 
 pope and the ruling bishops and foundations in such 
 a way that the pope has taken every other month 
 six in all to give away the benefices that fall in 
 his month. In this manner almost all the benefices 
 are drawn into the hands of Rome, and especially 
 the best livings and dignities. And those that once 
 fall into the hands of Rome never come out again, 
 even though they never again fall vacant in the 
 pope's month. In this way the foundations come 
 very short of their rights, and it is a downright rob- 
 bery, the object of which is not to give up anything 
 again. Therefore it is now high time to abolish the 
 pope's months and to take back again all that has 
 thereby fallen into the hands of Rome ; for all the 
 princes and nobles should insist that the stolen 
 property be returned, the thieves punished, and that 
 those who abuse their powers shall be deprived of 
 them. If the pope can make a law on the day after 
 his election by which he takes our benefices and 
 livings to which he has no right, the Emperor Charles 
 should so much the more have a right to issue a 
 law for all Germany on the day after his coronation 
 that in future no livings and benefices are to fall to 
 Rome by virtue of the pope's month, but that those 
 that have so fallen are to be freed and taken from the 
 Romish robbers. This right he possesses authorita- 
 tively by virtue of his temporal sword. 
 
ii2 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 Luther then describes other methods employed 
 by the pope of taking livings and benefices, of 
 raising funds by means of the pallium, commen- 
 dams, the glosses or incorporations of incom- 
 patible benefices, and other measures. 
 
 Meanwhile [he continues] since this devilish state 
 of things is not only an open robbery, deceit, and 
 tyranny of the gates of hell, but also destroys Chris- 
 tianity, body and soul, we are bound to use all our 
 diligence to prevent this misery and destruction of 
 Christendom. If we wish to fight the Turks, let 
 us begin here, where they are worst. If we justly 
 hang thieves and behead robbers, why do we leave 
 unpunished the greed of Rome, that is the greatest 
 thief and robber that has appeared or can appear 
 on earth, and does all this in the holy name of Christ 
 and St. Peter? Who can suffer this and be silent 
 about it? Almost everything that they possess has 
 been stolen or got by robbery, as we learn from all 
 histories. Why, the pope never bought those great 
 possessions, so as to be able to raise well-nigh ten- 
 hundred thousand ducats from his ecclesiastical 
 offices, without counting his gold mines and his land. 
 He did not inherit this wealth from Christ and St. 
 Peter. No one gave it to him or loaned it to him. 
 He has not acquired it by prescription. Tell me, 
 where can he have got it? You can learn from this 
 what their object is when the popes send out legates 
 to collect money to be used against the Turk. 
 
The Sovereignty of the State 113 
 
 Among the reforms he proposes and sets forth 
 in this lengthy treatise, Luther urges that the 
 princes, nobles, and cities should promptly forbid 
 their subjects to pay the annates to Rome and 
 should even abolish them altogether. He sets 
 forth the condition of affairs and the need for 
 action in the following words: 
 
 The pope has broken the compact, and turned the 
 annates into robbery for the harm and shame of 
 the German nation. He gives them to his friends. 
 He sells them for large sums of money, and founds 
 benefices on them. Therefore, he has forfeited his 
 right to them, and deserves punishment. In this 
 way the temporal power should protect the innocent 
 and prevent wrong-doing, as we are taught by St. 
 Paul (Romans xiii.) and by St. Peter (i Peter ii.), 
 and even by the canon law (16 q. 7, de Filiis). That 
 is why we say to the pope and his followers, Tu or a ! 
 "Thou shalt pray"; to the emperor and his followers, 
 Tu protege! "Thou shalt protect"; to the commons, 
 Tu labor a! "Thou shalt work. " Not that each man 
 should not pray, protect, and work; for if a man fulfils 
 his duty, that is prayer, protection, and work; but 
 every man must have his proper task. 
 
 Since, by means of those Romish tricks, commen- 
 dams, coadjutors, reservations, expectations, pope's 
 months, incorporations, unions, palls, rules of chancel- 
 lery, and other such knaveries, the pope takes unlawful 
 possession of all German foundations, to give and 
 
 8 
 
ii4 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 sell them to strangers at Rome, profiting Germany 
 in no way, so that the incumbents are robbed of their 
 rights, and the bishops are made mere ciphers and 
 anointed idols; and thus, besides natural justice and 
 reason, the pope's own canon law is violated; 
 and things have come to such a pass that prebends 
 and benefices are sold at Rome to vulgar, ignorant 
 asses and knaves, out of sheer greed, while pious, 
 learned men have no profit by their merit and skill, 
 whereby the unfortunate German people must needs 
 lack good, learned prelates and suffer ruin; on 
 account of these evils the Christian nobility should 
 rise up against the pope as a common enemy and 
 destroyer of Christianity, for the sake of the salvation 
 of the poor souls that such tyranny must ruin. They 
 should ordain, order, and decree that henceforth no 
 benefice shall be drawn away to Rome, and that no 
 benefice shall be claimed there in any fashion what- 
 soever; and after having once got these benefices out 
 of the hands of Romish tyranny, they must be kept 
 from them, and their lawful incumbents must be 
 reinstated in them to administer them as best they 
 may within the German nation. And if a courtling 
 come from Rome, he should receive the strict com- 
 mand to withdraw, or to leap into the Rhine, or 
 whatever river be nearest, and to administer a cold 
 bath to the interdict, seal and letters and all. Thus 
 those at Rome would learn that we Germans are not 
 to remain drunken fools forever but that we, too, are 
 become Christians, and that as such we will no longer 
 
The Sovereignty of the State 115 
 
 suffer this shameful mockery of Christ's holy name, 
 that serves as a cloak for such knavery and destruc- 
 tion of souls, and that we shall respect God and the 
 glory of God more than the power of men. 
 
 It should be decreed by an imperial law that no 
 Episcopal cloak and no confirmation of any appoint- 
 ment shall, for the future, be obtained from Rome. 
 The order of the most holy and renowned Nicene 
 Council must again be restored, namely that a bishop 
 must be confirmed by the two nearest bishops or by 
 the archbishop. ... , 
 
 Let it be decreed that no temporal matter shall ^ 
 be submitted to Rome, but that all shall be left to the <y 
 jurisdiction of the civil authorities. This is part oiv, 
 their own canon law, though they do not obey it. S 
 . . . For all countries suffer unbearable damage 
 this practice of settling such matters at Rome, since 
 it involves great expense; and, besides this, the judges \ 
 at Rome, not knowing the manners, laws, and customs 
 of other countries, frequently pervert the matter / 
 according to their own laws and their own opinions, / 
 thus causing injustice to all parties. Besides this, 
 we should prohibit in all foundations the grievous . 
 extortion of the ecclesiastical judges. They should * 
 only be allowed to consider matters concerning f 
 and good morals; but matters concerning money, 
 property, life, and honour should be left to the tem- 
 poral judges. Therefore the temporal authorities / 
 should not permit excommunication or expulsion y 
 except in matters of faith and righteous living. . . . 
 
n6 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 Henceforth no reservations should be valid and 
 no benefices should be appropriated by Rome, whether 
 the incumbent die there, or there be a dispute, or the 
 incumbent be a servant of the pope or of a cardinal; 
 and all courtiers should be strictly prohibited and 
 prevented from causing a dispute about any benefice 
 so as to cite the pious priests, to trouble them, and 
 to drive them to pay compensation. And if, in 
 consequence of this, there comes an interdict from 
 Rome, let it be despised, just as if a thief were to 
 excommunicate any man because he would not 
 allow him to steal in peace. . . . 
 
 The cases reserved (casus reservati) should be 
 abolished, by which not only are the people cheated 
 out of much money, but, besides, many poor con- 
 sciences are confused and led into error by the ruthless 
 tyrants, to the intolerable harm of their faith in 
 God. . . . 
 
 The terrible oaths must be abolished which bishops 
 are forced, without any right, to swear to the pope, 
 by which they are bound like servants. ... Is it 
 not enough that they oppress us in goods, body, 
 and soul by all their mad laws, by which they have 
 weakened faith and destroyed Christianity? But 
 .must they now take possession of the very persons 
 of bishops, with their offices and functions, and also 
 claim the investiture, which used formerly to be the 
 right of the German emperors, and is still the right of 
 the king in France and other kingdoms ? This matter 
 caused many wars and disputes with the emperors until 
 
The Sovereignty of the State 117 
 
 the popes impudently took the power by force, since 
 which time they have retained it, just as if it were 
 only right for the Germans, above all Christians on 
 earth, to be the fools of the pope and the Holy See, 
 and to do and suffer what no one else would suffer 
 or do. Seeing then that this is mere arbitrary power, 
 robbery, and a hindrance to the exercise of the bishop's 
 ordinary power, and to the injury of poor souls, 
 therefore it is the duty of the emperor and his nobles 
 to prevent and punish this tyranny. / 
 
 The pope should have no power over the emperor,*/ 
 except to anoint and crown him at the altar, as a 
 bishop crowns a king; nor should that devilish pomp 
 be allowed that the emperor should kiss the pope's 
 feet, or sit at his feet, or, as it is said, hold his 
 stirrup or the reins of his mule, when he mounts 
 to ride. Much less should he pay homage to the y/ 
 pope or swear allegiance, as is impudently demanded^ 
 by the popes, as if they had a right to it. ... 
 
 It is not meet that the pope should exalt himself */ 
 above temporal authority, except in spiritual matters, \/ 
 such as preaching and absolution. In other matters,^ 
 he should be subject to it, according to the teaching!/ 
 of St. Paul (Romans xiii.) and St. Peter (i Peter in.), I/ 
 as I have said above. . . . 
 
 It is absurd and puerile for the pope to boast for 
 such blind, foolish reasons, in his decretal Pastorates, 
 that he is the rightful heir to the empire, if the throne 
 be vacant. Who gave it to him? ... It disgusts 
 me that we have to read and teach such impudent, 
 
n8 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 clumsy, foolish lies in the canon law, and, moreover, 
 to take them for Christian doctrine, while in reality 
 they are mere devilish lies. Of this kind, also, is 
 the unheard-of lie touching the "Donation of Con- 
 stantine. "... The pope wishes to rule an empire, 
 ^N and to remain a pope. . . . 
 
 \ J The pope must withdraw his hand from the dish, 
 and on no pretence assume royal authority over 
 Naples and Sicily. He has no more right to them 
 than I, and yet claims to be the lord their liege 
 lord. They have been taken by force and robbery, 
 like almost all his other possessions. Therefore, 
 the emperor should grant him no such fief, nor any 
 longer allow him those he has, but direct him instead 
 to his bibles and prayer books, so that he may leave 
 the government of countries and peoples to the 
 temporal power, especially of those that no one has 
 * given him. Let him rather preach and pray. The 
 same should be done with Bologna, Imola, Vicenza, 
 Ravenna, and whatever the pope has taken by force 
 and holds without right in the Ancontine territory, 
 in the Romagna, and other parts of Italy. . . . 
 
 The civil law, too, good God! What a wilderness 
 it has become! It is indeed much better, more skil- 
 ful, and more honest than the canon law, of which 
 nothing is good but the name. 1 Still, there is far 
 
 Luther denied the binding validity of the canon law, for 
 he felt that it exhibited an incongruous confusion of matters 
 spiritual and temporal by attaching a legal sanction to 
 whatever the authorities of the church had declared to be 
 
The Sovereignty of the State 119 
 
 too much of it. Surely good governors, in addition 
 to the Holy Scriptures, would be law enough, as 
 St. Paul says: "Is it so, that there is not a wise man 
 among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge 
 between his brethren?" 1 I think also that the com- 
 mon law and the usage of the country should be 
 preferred to the law of the empire, and that the law 
 of the empire should only be used in cases of neces- 
 sity. And would to God that, as each land has its 
 own peculiar character and nature, they could all be 
 governed by their own simple laws, just as they 
 governed before the law oF"ttie~empire was devised, 
 and as many are governed even now! Elaborate 
 and far-fetched laws are only burdensome to the 
 people, and a hindrance rather than a help to business. 
 But I hope that others have thought of this, and 
 considered it to better purpose than I can. . . . 
 
 I know full well that the Romish mob will object 
 and loudly pretend that the pope took the Holy 
 Roman Empire from the Greek Emperor and gave 
 it to Germany, for which honour and favour he is 
 supposed to deserve submission and thanks and all 
 other kinds of returns from the Germans. For this 
 
 binding on the conscience. He denounced as brutal and 
 unchristian the doctrine that a violation of the canons 
 entails the loss of salvation. Geffcken: Church and State, i., 
 
 33- 
 
 It was but natural that, feeling as he did, he should cast a 
 copy of these laws into the flames when he burned the papal 
 bull excommunicating him. 
 
 1 / Corinthians vi., 5. 
 
120 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 reason they will perhaps assume to oppose all at- 
 tempts to reform them, and will let no regard be paid 
 to anything but those "donations" of the Roman 
 Empire. This is also the reason why they have so 
 arbitrarily and proudly persecuted and oppressed 
 many good emperors, so that it were pity to tell, 
 and with the same cleverness have they made them- 
 selves lords of all the temporal power and authority, 
 in violation of the Holy Gospel; and accordingly 
 I must speak of this matter also. 
 
 There is no doubt that the true Roman Empire, 
 of which the prophets (Numbers xxiv., 24 and Daniel 
 ii., 44) spoke, was long ago destroyed, as Balaam 
 clearly foretold, saying: "And ships shall come from 
 the coast of Chittim and shall afflict Asshur, and 
 shall afflict Eber, and he also shall perish forever." 1 
 And this was done by the Goths, and more especially 
 since the empire of the Turks was formed, about one 
 thousand years ago, and so gradually Asia and Africa 
 were lost, and subsequently France, Spain, and 
 finally Venice arose, so that Rome retains no part 
 of its former power. 
 
 Since, then, the pope could not force the Greeks 
 and the emperor at Constantinople, who is the 
 hereditary Roman emperor, to obey his will, he 
 invented this device to rob him of his empire and 
 title, and to give it to the Germans, who were at 
 that time strong and of good repute, in order that 
 they might take the power of the Roman Empire 
 
 i Numbers xxiv., 24. 
 
The Sovereignty of the State 121 
 
 and hold it of the pope; and this is actually what 
 happened. It was taken from the emperor at 
 Constantinople, and the name and title were given 
 to us Germans, and therewith we became subject to 
 the pope, and he has built up a new Roman Empire 
 on the Germans. For the other empire, the original, 
 came to an end long ago, as said above. 
 
 Thus the Roman See has got what it wished. 
 Rome has been taken possession of, and the German 
 emperor driven out and bound by oaths not to 
 dwell in Rome. He is to be Roman emperor and 
 nevertheless not to dwell in Rome, and, moreover, 
 always to depend on the pope and his followers, and 
 to do their will. We are to have the title, and they 
 are to have the lands and the cities. For they have 
 always made our simplicity the tool of their pride 
 and tyranny, and they consider us as stupid Germans, 
 to be deceived and fooled by them as they choose. . . . 
 
 Now, although the pope has violently and unjustly 
 robbed the true emperor of the Roman Empire, 
 or its name, and has given it to us Germans, yet it is 
 certain that God has used the pope's wickedness 
 to give the German nation this empire and to raise 
 up a new Roman Empire, that exists now, after the 
 fall of the old empire. We gave the pope no cause 
 for this action, nor did we understand his false aims 
 and schemes; but still, through the craft and knavery 
 of the popes, we have, alas, all too dearly, paid the 
 price of this empire with incalculable bloodshed, 
 with the loss of our liberty, with the robbery of our 
 
122 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 wealth, especially of our churches and benefices, 
 and with unspeakable treachery and insult. We have 
 the empire in name, but the pope has our wealth, 
 our honour, our bodies, lives and souls, and all that 
 we have. This was the way to deceive the Germans, 
 and to deceive them by shuffling. What the popes 
 wished was to become emperors ; and, as they could 
 not do this, they put themselves above the emperors. 
 
 Since, then, we have received this empire through 
 God's providence and the schemes of evil men, 
 without our fault, I would not advise that we should 
 give it up, but that we should govern it honestly, 
 in the fear of God, as long as He is pleased to let us 
 hold it. For, as I have said, it is no matter to Him 
 how a kingdom is come by, but He will have it duly 
 governed. If the popes took it from others dishonestly, 
 we at least did not come by it dishonestly. It was 
 given to us through evil men, under the will of God, to 
 Whom we have more regard than the false intentions 
 of the popes, who wished to be emperors and more 
 than emperors, and to fool and mock us with the 
 name. 
 
 The King of Babylon obtained his kingdom by 
 force and robbery; yet God would have it governed 
 by the holy princes Daniel, Hananiah, Azariah, and 
 Mishael. Much more, then, does He require this 
 empire to be governed by the Christian princes of 
 Germany, though the Pope may have stolen, or 
 robbed, or newly fashioned it. It is all God's order- 
 ing, which came to pass before we knew of it. 
 
The Sovereignty of the State 123 
 
 Therefore the pope and his followers have no reason 
 to boast that they did a great kindness to the German 
 nation in giving them this Roman Empire; first of 
 all, because they intended no good to us in the matter, 
 but only abused our simplicity to strengthen their 
 own power against the Roman emperor at Constanti- 
 nople, from whom, against God and justice, the pope 
 has taken what he had no right to. 
 
 Secondly, the pope sought to give the empire, 
 not to us, but to himself, and to become lord over 
 all our power, liberty, wealth, body, and soul, and 
 through us over all the world, if God had not prevented 
 it, as he plainly says in his decretals, and has tried, 
 with many mischievous tricks, in the case of many 
 German emperors. Thus we Germans have been 
 taught in plain German: whilst we expected to 
 become lords, we have become the servants of the 
 most crafty tyrants. We have the name, title, and 
 arms of the empire, but the pope has its treasure, 
 authority, law, and freedom. Thus, whilst the pope 
 eats the kernel, he leaves us the empty shells to 
 play with. 
 
 Now may God help us (Who, as I have said, assigned 
 us this kingdom through crafty tyrants, and charged 
 us to govern it) to act according to our name, 
 title, and arms, and to secure our freedom, and thus 
 let the Romans see at last what we have received 
 of God through them. If they boast that they have 
 given us an empire, well, be it so, by all means; then 
 let the pope give up Rome, all he has of the empire, 
 
124 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 and free our country from his unbearable taxes and 
 robberies, and give back to us our liberty, authority, 
 wealth, honour, body and soul, rendering to the 
 empire those things that are the empire's, so as to 
 act in accordance with his words and pretences. . . . 
 Let the German emperor be a true, free emperor, 
 and let not his authority or his sword be overborne 
 by these blind pretences of the pope's sycophants, 
 as if they were to be exceptions, and be above the 
 temporal sword in all things. 
 
 Writing against the Turks nearly a score of 
 years later, 1 Luther declares that the civil author- 1 
 ity is under obligations to restrain those who, I 
 without right, begin war and rob and murder. 
 This kind of vengeance is not forbidden, for St. 
 Paul says that rulers are avengers of God 2 ; that 
 is, instituted and commanded by Him. Ven- 
 geance which is not taken up through the proper 
 civil authorities or by their direction is forbidden 
 to Christians. These contentions he elucidates 
 as follows : 
 
 As to the claim that the faith should not be pro- 
 tected by the sword, but people should suffer, as 
 Christ and the apostles, it is true that those who are 
 
 1 Unterricht der Visitatoren an die Pfarrherren im Chur- 
 furstenthum Sachsen (1538). Walch ed., x., 1671, 1672. 
 
 2 Romans xiii., 4. 
 
The Sovereignty of the State 125 
 
 not rulers should suffer, each for himself, and not 
 defend themselves, after the example of Christ. 
 But the civil authorities should protect their subjects 
 against wrongful violence, whether offered on account 
 of faith or for other reason. And inasmuch as the 
 civil power is to honour good works and punish the 
 wicked, it is likewise to restrain and check those 
 who seek to deprive the people of divine worship, 
 good governmental administration, law, and justice. 
 Therefore we are under obligations to defend our- 
 selves against the Turks, who seek not only to deso- 
 late our country and ravish and kill our women and 
 children, but also to take away the law of the land, 
 divine worship, and all good order, so that the sur- 
 vivors would not be secure in life, nor could the 
 children be raised in discipline and virtue. 
 
 Were there no Christian faith, it would be necessary 
 nevertheless that we should fight the Turks for the 
 sake of wife and child. For we were better dead than 
 to witness and suffer such shame as would be ours. 
 For the Turks drive people to market, buy and sell 
 them, and treat them like cattle, whether man or 
 woman, young or old, maid or wife. The clergy 
 should exhort the people to pray God to protect 
 us against such fanatics and tyrants, and instruct 
 the people that it is a real divine service to fight 
 against such a foe, at the bidding and under the 
 direction of the civil government. 
 
 In another writing, Luther maintains that every 
 judge is under obligation to judge in accordance 
 
i26 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 with the laws of his land. The Mosaic code, for 
 example, would not apply to the German nation. 1 
 Luther thus stood (as the extracts we have 
 given from his writings show) for a united Ger- 
 many, with a government by the Germans and 
 for the Germans, as against all foreign interference 
 or domination. His is one of the strongest pleas 
 in the history of the world for the government 
 of the people of one race by their own rulers, 
 without hindrance or dictation from without. 
 Credit given to other writers on this subject 
 belongs to him. 2 His Appeal to the German 
 Nobility was an appeal to the German nobles 
 to resist foreign interference, and to govern their 
 
 1 Bedenken D. M. Luther s, dass man nach Mo sis Recht 
 nicht urtheilen noch richten solle. Walch ed., x., 356. 
 
 2 Mr. Willoughby asserts that outwardly, in its relation 
 with other powers, the state appears to Bodin as independent 
 and free from external legal compulsion of any sort whatever. 
 The logical result of this position was, of course, to render the 
 conception of sovereignty necessarily territorial in character, 
 that is, as exercisable over a definite portion of the world's 
 surface. . . . The epoch-making character of Bodin's work 
 is seen, continues Mr. Willoughby, when we consider the 
 conceptions that had prevailed prior to his time. On the one 
 hand the old idea of the universality of the Roman Empire, 
 arid the alleged supremacy of the church in matters temporal 
 had rendered impossible the idea of sovereignty as including 
 complete state independence. Willoughby: An Examination 
 of the Nature of the State, pp. 186, 187. But Luther's writings 
 show he had this conception or idea before Bodin. 
 
The Sovereignty of the State 127 
 
 own lands. The fact must not be overlooked 
 that the time was ripe for this appeal against 
 foreign interference, dictation, and taxation. 
 The Imperial Diet had not only considered the 
 subject again and again, but drew up formal state- 
 ments concerning it. Emperor Maximilian himself, 
 at the Diet held at Augsburg in 1510, for example, 
 caused a more detailed and distinct statement 
 of the grievances of the German nation to be 
 drawn up, than had previously existed. He 
 convoked a council, of which the church stood in 
 such great need, and declared that, although 
 Rome delayed, he would not. 1 
 
 Luther's appeal was a plea on behalf of a people 
 of one race to become united in civil government 
 and establish a national state. It was, indeed, 
 the first definite call for a united Germany. 2 
 While it did not lead to the establishment of a 
 unitary, or even a closely confederated, govern- 
 ment of the German people, it did result in the 
 throwing off of the foreign yoke. The power of 
 the electors and of the princes in their respective 
 territories became stronger and more centralised, 
 both in political and ecclesiastical affairs. Had 
 the German people at that time stood together, 
 united politically, for a common government, 
 
 1 Ranke: History of the Reformation in Germany, i., 270. 
 
 2 Lindsay: Luther and the German Reformation, pp. 107, 108. 
 
128 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 the later history of Europe would have been 
 vastly different. 
 
 Luther's appeal was for a modern state; not 
 the ideal world-empire, 1 but a sovereign, unitary, 
 territorial state of one people, the national 
 state, as the most natural, the most homogeneous, 
 the most stable, and the most successful. The 
 Florentine Machiavelli said, centuries ago: "We 
 owe to Rome that we are become divided and 
 factious, which must of necessity be our ruin, 
 for no nation was ever happy or united unless 
 under the rule of one commonwealth or prince, 
 as France and Spain are at this time." 2 
 
 A modern writer expresses the idea and the 
 need of the national state in language none- too 
 strong when he says: " Every great people which is 
 fit to become a nation and a state, has its own polit- 
 ical point of view and its own special function as 
 a state, and this cannot be fulfilled unless the 
 nation gives to the state the impress of its own 
 character. This is what is meant by the natural 
 right of a nation to a national constitution (volks- 
 ikumliche Verfassung) . " 3 
 
 It was universally felt in Luther's day that 
 "it was high time that Germany should be consid- 
 
 1 See Bluntschli: The Theory of the State, p. 32. 
 
 2 Lindsay: Luther and the German Reformation, p. 119. 
 
 3 Bluntschli: The Theory of the State, p. 101. 
 
The Sovereignty of the State 129 
 
 ered as a nation with one national language, com- 
 mon national usages, and national laws which 
 should preserve individual rights and liberties 
 unknown to the Roman law, which was super- 
 seding the old usages." 1 The peasants, in their 
 more elaborate manifestoes and demands, urged, 
 among other things, an organised imperial admin- 
 istration, with communal courts ascending to an 
 imperial court. They sought a uniform system 
 of coinage, weights and measures, and taxes 
 and customs dues throughout the empire. In 
 every case, the emperor was looked upon as 
 lord-paramount. 2 The awakened feeling of Ger- 
 man nationality was driven into hostility to an 
 institution whose title and history bound it to 
 the centre of foreign tyranny. "After exulting 
 for seven centuries in the heritage of Roman 
 rule, half of the nation cherished again the feeling 
 with which their ancestors had resisted Julius 
 Caesar and Germanicus." 3 
 
 Had Charles V stood for religious liberty, it is 
 not too much to say that the government of 
 Germany would have become in his day a strong 
 confederation, if not a compact monarchy; for 
 the Imperial Diet held at Worms in 1521, before 
 
 1 Lindsay: Luther and the German Reformation , p. 114. 
 a Lindsay: A History of the Reformation, i., 333. 
 Bryce: The Holy Roman Empire, p. 385. 
 
130 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 which Luther made his plea for freedom of faith, 
 had a new plan presented for the establishment 
 of a central council of administration or govern- 
 ment; for this was the era, Mr. Bryce tells us, 
 of the first conscious feeling of German nationality 
 as distinct from the imperial. Driven in on all 
 sides, with Italy and the Slavic lands and Bur- 
 gundy hopelessly lost, Teutschland learned to 
 separate itself from Welschland. The .empire 
 became the representative of a narrower but more 
 practical national union, and was undoubtedly 
 sinking into a merely German power. 1 
 
 If there had been no Holy Roman Empire [says 
 Mr. Sidgwick], if the German king had had no further 
 ambition than to be king of Germany, if he had not 
 had his attention continually distracted and his 
 resources continually exhausted by Italian adven- 
 tures I see no clear reason why Germany should not 
 have attained national unity under a king, like France 
 and Spain, at the close of the Middle Ages; and at 
 any rate, it would not have been split up into a be- 
 wildering profusion of principalities, great and small, 
 held together by the imperfect bond of a so-called 
 empire, as we find it when modern history begins. 2 
 
 It may be said, with stronger reason, that if 
 Frederick the Wise, the Elector of Saxony, had 
 
 1 Bryce: The Holy Roman Empire, pp. 368-370. 
 
 2 Sidgwick: The Development of European Polity, p. 196. 
 
The Sovereignty of the State 131 
 
 accepted the imperial crown when proffered to 
 him, as history assures us it was at the time of 
 the election of Charles V in 1519,* the German 
 people would have become a united, sovereign, 
 and independent nation generally accepting the 
 political doctrines maintained by the great reform- 
 er ; for Frederick was friendly to the new theories 
 of civil government, as he was at the same time 
 most kindly disposed towards the masses of the 
 people and much beloved by them. As emperor 
 his influence would have been very great, both 
 as to the sovereignty of the national state and 
 the inalienable civil and religious rights of the 
 individual. 
 
 It was not Luther, nor was it his principles of 
 freedom of conscience and civil and religious 
 liberty that put an end to all prospects for a 
 united people politically; nor was it popular 
 opposition to the new faith. Herr von Miltitz, 
 a Saxon nobleman, deputed by the pope in 1519 
 to endeavour to secure submission and a promise 
 of silence from Luther, himself acknowledged to 
 the reformer that throughout his journey in 
 Germany he had found on an average three voices 
 to one in his favour; and this was only two years 
 after Luther's first appearance in the public eye 
 as a protestant against certain teachings and 
 
 i Lindsay: Luther and the German Reformation, p. 115. 
 
132 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 practices of Rome. At the time of Luther's 
 death (1546), Germany was almost entirely 
 Protestant. According to a report made by the 
 Venetian ambassador in 1557, seven tenths of 
 the German people belonged to the Lutheran 
 faith, two tenths to the Reformed or other sects; 
 and one tenth only remained Roman Catholic. 1 
 
 From this time on, a different attitude was 
 maintained towards the emperor by the different 
 electors and princes of the empire. To his Pro- 
 testant princes and people he was merely the 
 titular head of the nation; to the Catholics he 
 was also the advocate and defender of their 
 faith. 2 
 
 It was the refusal of the emperor and some of 
 the princes to recognise and concede to others 
 the right of the individual conscience, and the 
 rights of different, virtually sovereign states; it 
 was their denial of the doctrine that the sover- 
 eignty of the state extends over every individual 
 within its boundaries, and that it is the only 
 institution possessing coercive authority; it was 
 their failure or refusal to assert and maintain 
 k their own sovereignty, as against foreign eccle- 
 siastical and civil influence and power; that put an 
 end to the bright prospects for Germanic unity. 
 
 1 Geffcken: Church and State, i., 317. 
 
 2 Bryce: The Holy Roman Empire, p. 385. 
 
The Sovereignty of the State 133 
 
 Jealousies between the princes and the emperor, 
 rivalries among the different princes and electors, 
 hostility between the secular and ecclesiastical 
 members of the empire, oppression of the weaker 
 nobility by the stronger, were elements in a 
 situation rendered still more complex by differ- 
 ences of local governments and aims. Concerning 
 these various and repugnant forms of civil policy 
 in the several states which composed the Germanic 
 body, an historian says: 
 
 It is no easy matter to render the union of inde- 
 pendent states perfect and entire, even when the 
 genius and forms of their respective governments 
 happen to be altogether similar. But in the German 
 empire, which was a confederacy of princes, of eccle- 
 siastics, and of free cities, it was impossible that they 
 could incorporate thoroughly. The free cities were 
 small republics, in which the maxims and spirit 
 peculiar to that species of government prevailed. 
 The princes and nobles, to whom supreme jurisdiction 
 belonged, possessed a sort of monarchical power 
 within their own territories, and the forms of their 
 interior administration nearly resembled those of 
 the great feudal kingdoms. The interests, the ideas, 
 the objects of states so differently constituted can- 
 not be the same. Nor could their common delibera- 
 tions be carried on with the same spirit, while the 
 love of liberty, and attention to commerce, were the 
 reigning principles in the cities, while the desire of 
 
134 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 power, and ardour for military glory , were the govern- 
 ing passions of the princes and nobility. 1 
 
 Luther certainly cannot be censured for pro- 
 posing and urging principles recognised and 
 advocated by every enlightened people in the 
 world to-day, whatever may have been the course 
 of history in and after his day. In spite of the 
 fact that it required more than three centuries 
 to bring Germany back again to this point, 
 Luther 's appeal of 1520 eventually won lasting 
 recognition. 2 There was a golden opportunity 
 in his day for the sovereignty of the state in the 
 modern sense; but the Roman See continued to 
 be sovereign, as against civil power, in those 
 states of Germany where the papal supremacy 
 was recognised by the ruling secular or ecclesi- 
 astical princes. Had it been dependent on a 
 popular vote of the people of Germany, of and 
 by themselves, probably at any time after Luther's 
 appearance at the Diet of Worms in 1521, no 
 such foreign interference, dictation, or consid- 
 eration ecclesiastical or otherwise would have 
 been recognised or tolerated. 
 
 1 Prescott: Robertson's History of the Reign of the Emperor 
 Charles V, i., 213, 214. 
 
 2 It is strange that it required these centuries to develop 
 the German Empire, when it is remembered that the "Teuton 
 really dominates the world by his superior political genius. " 
 Burgess: Political Science and Constitutional Law, i., 4. 
 
CHAPTER VI 
 
 THE RIGHT OF REFORM AND REVOLUTION 
 
 AN essential element of sovereignty, it has been 
 noted, is the right to command and the 
 power to enforce the command. The state is not 
 sovereign unless it is able to crush rebellion, revolu- 
 tion, or lawlessness of any kind within its bounds. 
 The state, indeed, "cannot exist without having 
 the power of compelling those who oppose its 
 aims to surrender their will to the law." 1 But 
 the right of a people or of a state to institute and 
 establish a form of government carries with it 
 the right to alter or amend that government. 
 This is the foundation principle of a free people. 
 The first President of the United States said in 
 his Farewell Address in 1796: 
 
 The basis of our political systems is the right of 
 the people to make and alter their constitutions of 
 government. But the constitution which at any 
 time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic 
 
 1 Geffcken: Church and State, i., 73. 
 135 
 
136 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon 
 all. The very idea of the power and right of the 
 people to establish government presupposes the duty 
 of every individual to obey the established govern- 
 ment. All obstructions to the execution of the laws, 
 all combinations and associations, under whatever 
 plausible character, with the real design to direct, 
 control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation 
 and action of the constituted authorities, are destruc- 
 tive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal 
 tendency. 1 
 
 Alterations and changes in a government made 
 in accordance with the spirit of a state's constitu- 
 tion, by its representatives in regular or consti- 
 tutional manner, may be properly considered 
 reforms. A revolution implies more than a 
 change of administration, or a change of policy 
 on the part of the government. It involves 
 more than an amendment of the constitution. 
 It involves nothing less than an overthrow, or 
 fundamental change, in spirit as well as in form, 
 of an existing constitution. It is the renunciation 
 of one government and the substitution of another. 
 Where reforms willed by the people are denied 
 by an existing government, or prohibited by an 
 existing constitution, the only alternative by 
 
 i Bryan: The World's Famous Orations, viii., 95. 
 Bluntschli: The Theory of the State, p. 476, note. 
 
Right of Reform and Revolution , 137 
 
 which that will of the people may be carried into 
 effect is a revolution. There is a right of revolu- 
 tion, but it is rare. l It may be justified only when 
 "the state itself is in danger of perishing, or if 
 vital interests of the public weal are threatened." 2 
 Driven to the last resort, a people may forcibly 
 overthrow an existing government, where they 
 cannot reform it in accordance with their will, 
 and set up a new constitution, with a new 
 
 1 A distinction must be drawn at the outset between the 
 absolutist views of some peoples and ages on the subject of 
 government and the non-absolutist views of others. The 
 absolutist character of the two centuries following Luther, as 
 Mr. Bluntschli says, implied a theory of the state which based 
 it upon the power of a superior. Louis XIV actually identi- 
 fied himself with the state (" l'e"tat c'est moi"). This was 
 the fundamental idea of the absolutist theory of the state 
 which, prepared by Bodin and Hobbes, was developed theo- 
 logically and given every variation. In this theory, the 
 rights and liberties of the governed were altogether left 
 out of consideration. "Only the prince and the government 
 officials had any value, and the subjects were looked on as a 
 mere passive mass, to be managed and governed from above, 
 but with no claim to manage themselves, or to share the 
 government, or to control the conduct of their rulers." 
 Bluntschli: The Theory of the State, pp. 64, 65. 
 
 The theory of papal absolutism, and the arguments for 
 imperial absolutism which followed closely in its wake, 
 though they seem at first view so genuinely mediaeval, are 
 really among the first doctrines leading away from the Middle 
 Ages. Gierke : Political Theories of the Middle Age, p. 5. 
 
 a Bluntschli: The Theory of the State, p. 477. 
 
138 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 form of government; for " necessity knows no 
 law." 1 
 
 Luther clearly recognised a right of reform in 
 accordance with the constitutional principles of a 
 government. 2 In his stirring Appeal to the 
 German Nobility he has distinctly in view an 
 orderly resistance conducted by the lawful leaders 
 of the nation. 3 Attention has already been called 
 to his proposals for various specific changes in the 
 laws of the land. He maintained that if the laws 
 binding a ruler are disregarded and violated, he 
 is subject to account and dismissal from office. 4 
 The pope himself may be deposed. Lands unlaw- 
 fully held and claimed by him should be taken 
 from him. Disputes and disagreements between 
 emperor and electors as to their respective rights 
 and powers are questions of constitutional law 
 
 1 The views of another renowned German on this general 
 subject will be found reflected in Goethe's Gotz von Berlich- 
 ingen mil der eisernen Hand. 
 
 2 Failure to distinguish between reform and revolution 
 leads Lord Acton to say of him: "The great fact which we 
 have to recognise is that with all the intensity of his passion 
 for authority he did more than any single man to make 
 modern history the development of revolution." Lectures 
 on Modern History, p. 105. 
 
 ' Hay: Luther the Reformer, p. 114. 
 
 < Locke follows Luther's principle that public service 
 is a trust that, when abused, may be revoked by those 
 granting it. 
 
Right of Reform and Revolution 139 
 
 and therefore for the consideration of the jurists. 1 
 Luther maintained that, under certain circum- 
 stances, even as to temporal matters, self-defence 
 is the right of the Christian, and especially so in 
 the case of tyranny. 2 When the prince is in 
 the wrong, the subject is not under obligation to 
 support him and fight for him. If the emperor 
 himself violate the constitution and do not per- 
 form his duty in accordance with his oath, let 
 him be formally deposed by the imperial electors 3 ; 
 but, until and unless formally and legally deposed, 
 he is to be respected and obeyed as emperor. 4 
 As an evidence of his personal willingness to obey 
 
 1 Brief vom 15 Jan., 1531, an Wenceslaus Link in Number g. 
 Walch ed, xxi a., 1616. 
 
 Schrift vom 15 Feb., 1531, an Lazarus Spengler, Geheimer 
 Rath zu Number g, ob man dem Kaiser wider stehen solle. 
 Walch ed., x., 570. 
 
 2 Dunning: History of Political Theories from Luther to 
 Montesquieu, p. 14. 
 
 3 This right the electors not only claimed, but actually 
 exercised in several instances. In the year 1298 they de- 
 posed Adolphus of Nassau, and elected Albert of Austria to 
 his place. Wenceslaus was deposed by them at the opening 
 of the fifteenth century, and Rupert, the Elector Palatine, 
 elected emperor in his stead. This deposition was pronounced 
 in the name and by the authority of the electors, and con- 
 firmed by certain prelates and barons of the empire who were 
 present. Goldasti: Constit., i., 379. Prescott: Robertson's 
 History of the Reign of the Emperor Charles V, i., 410, 411. 
 
 * Brief an den Kurfursten Johannes vom 6 Marz, 1530. 
 Walch ed., x., 532 et seq. Bluntschli: Geschichte der neueren 
 
140 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 an unfriendly ruler, Luther declared his readiness 
 to appear personally before the emperor, if the 
 latter absolutely demanded it. 1 
 
 To Luther, the right of the government itself 
 to engage in war under certain conditions is 
 unquestioned. In a reply to Prierias, written in 
 1520, Luther says: 
 
 If the fury of the Romanists continue, there seems 
 to me to be no remedy left but that the emperor, 
 kings, and princes, girding on their armour, attack 
 these pests of the earth, and decide the matter, not by 
 words but with the sword. If we punish thieves with 
 the axe, heretics with fire, why do we not rather 
 attack these masters of perdition, these cardinals, 
 these popes, and the whole rabble of the Roman 
 Sodom, and wash our hands in their blood, and thus 
 free ourselves from the common and most dangerous 
 conflagration of all. 2 
 
 In his tract on Secular Authority* Luther asserts 
 that all the saints have carried the sword from 
 the beginning of the world, Adam, with his 
 
 Statswissenschaft, Allgemeines Statsrecht und Politik seit detn 
 1 6 Jahrhundert bis zur Gegenwart, p. 70. 
 
 Brief an denselben, vom 28 Nov., 1529. Bluntschli: Ge- 
 schichte der neueren Statswissenschaft, Allgemeines Statsrecht 
 und Politik seit dent 16 Jahrhundert bis zur Gegenwart, p. 70. 
 
 2 Mackinnon: A History of Modern Liberty, ii., 62, 63. 
 
 3 Von weltlicher Oberkeit, wie weit man ihr Gehorsam schuldig 
 sei (1523). Weimar ed., n Band, 229 et seq. 
 
Right of Reform and Revolution 141 
 
 descendants, and Abraham carried it. Samuel, 
 the holy prophet, slew Agag, the king, and Elijah 
 slew the prophets of Baal. Moses, Joshua, the 
 Children of Israel, Samson, David, and all the 
 kings and princes in the Old Testament carried 
 it; Daniel and his associates in Babylon, Joseph 
 in Egypt, etc. If it be asserted that the Old 
 Testament is abrogated and is no longer in force, 
 and that such examples cannot be cited authorita- 
 tively to the Christian, I answer, that is not so. 
 There then arises the question as to the correct 
 understanding of the words of Christ: " Resist 
 not evil." 1 It is this. A Christian should be so 
 skilled and qualified as to suffer everything evil 
 and unjust, and not avenge himself, not protect 
 himself before the courts; but that in all things he 
 should not require temporal authority and law 
 for himself. But for others, he may and should 
 seek punishment, justice, protection, and help, 
 and do in connection therewith whatever he may 
 be able. The civil authorities should also assist 
 and protect him either on their own initiative or 
 that of others, without complaint or action on his 
 own part. Where they do not do that, let him 
 permit himself to be oppressed and abused, and 
 withstand no evil, as Christ's words declare. 
 As to whether jailers, executioners, jurists, 
 
 Matthew v., 39. 
 
142 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 advocates, and such like may be Christians and 
 have a holy estate, Luther maintains that the 
 civil power and the sword are a divine service, 
 so that all that also must be divine service that 
 is necessary to the civil power in wielding the 
 sword. It must ever be that he who apprehends, 
 accuses, and destroys the wicked, protects, justi- 
 fies, defends, and rescues the good. Whenever, 
 therefore, one is not seeking for himself, but is 
 helping the maintenance of law and order, that 
 the wicked may be restrained, he may do so 
 without danger, and may use it as a business and 
 live thereon. For love of neighbour does not 
 consider its own and does not see how large or 
 small, but how useful and necessary any work 
 may be to the neighbour or to the community. 
 Luther declares further in this treatise that no 
 prince should wage war against his overlords, as 
 the king or emperor, or other feudal lords, but 
 should take what comes. For the authorities 
 should not be forcibly withstood, but with a 
 recognition of the truth. If the adversary be an 
 equal or an inferior, or a foreign power, first seek 
 right and peace, as Moses taught the children of 
 Israel. If the adversary is not willing to do this, 
 then do your best and protect yourself with force 
 against force, as Moses well expresses it in Deu- 
 teronomy xix. , 10 et seq. And in such a matter, you 
 
Right of Reform and Revolution 143 
 
 are not to consider your own things and how you 
 may remain lord, but should consider your sub- 
 jects, to whom you owe protection and assistance. 
 The subjects are under obligation to follow and 
 stake body and estate herein. For in such a case, 
 each one must hazard his property and himself for 
 the sake of others. In such a war it is Christ- 
 like and a work of love to destroy the enemy, 
 plunder, burn, and do everything that is injurious, 
 until they are overcome, according to the course 
 of war. But you must guard against sin, and 
 not violate wives and maidens, and when the 
 enemy is overcome, grant grace and peace to 
 those who surrender and submit. But when a 
 prince is in the wrong, his subjects are not under \ 
 obligations to follow him, for no one is obliged to 
 do anything against the right; but we must obey 
 God, who desires to have the right, rather than 
 men. 1 When the subj ects do not know and cannot 
 learn by possible industry whether the prince is 
 in the right or not, they may then follow him 
 without endangering their souls. 2 
 
 1 Acts of the Apostles v., 29. 
 
 2 Von weltlicher Oberkeit, wie weit man ihr Gehorsam schuldig 
 sei (1523). Weimar ed., n Band, 229 et seq. RathschlagD. 
 Luther s, Melanchthons und Bugenhagens, ob ein Furst seine 
 Unterthanen wider des Kaisers oder anderer Fursten Verfolg- 
 ung, um des Glaubens willen, mit Krieg schutzen moge (1523). 
 Walch ed., x., 572 et seq. 
 
144 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 Luther cannot be quoted in support of absolute 
 tyranny, or unconstitutional acts of governments 
 or rulers. One sees in him the manly Teutonic 
 sense of law and liberty, and it is a mischievous 
 misuse of his authority for absolutists falsely to 
 misapply his pious veneration of God's power, 
 that is also to be seen in civil authority, to servile 
 subjection under every tyranny. 1 
 
 Lawlessness and anarchy, however, are to be 
 sternly suppressed by the government. In writ- 
 ing on riotous disturbances, 2 he maintains that 
 the place of law and order is not to be taken or 
 filled by insurrection and violence. Insurrection 
 has no reason, and generally injures the innocent 
 more than the guilty. No lawless violence is 
 right, however right the object it may be seeking. 
 There invariably results more injury than better- 
 ment, as expressed in the maxim: " Aus Uebel 
 wird Aergeres." For this reason rulers and the 
 sword are instituted, to punish the wicked and 
 protect the good, that lawless insurrection may 
 be guarded against, as St. Paul says in Romans 
 xiii., 4, and Peter in I Peter ii., 13, 14. The rioter 
 
 1 Bluntschli: Geschichte der neueren Statswissenschaft, Allge- 
 meines Statsrecht und Potitik, p. 72. 
 
 a "Aufruhr," the German word used by Luther in this 
 connection, is difficult to translate into any one English 
 equivalent. It is variously translated uproar, tumult, 
 disorder, insurrection, mutiny, rebellion, revolt, riot, sedition. 
 
Right of Reform and Revolution 145 
 
 does not distinguish between the good and the 
 bad, but strikes into the crowd as it stands, and 
 cannot avoid doing shameless wrong. Therefore, 
 honour the authorities. So long as they do not 
 act and command, the citizen should remain 
 quiet with hand, mouth, and heart, and hold 
 himself aloof. He may influence the proper 
 authorities to take action, if he can. But if they 
 will not, neither may he. I hold, argues Luther, 
 and always wi]l hold with the people who suffer 
 from insurrection, howsoever wrongful a cause 
 it may have, and against the people who partici- 
 pate in it, howsoever rightful a cause it may have, 
 because lawless insurrection or revolt cannot but 
 involve innocent blood or other loss. Moreover, 
 sedition is prohibited by God, who says in Moses: 
 "That which is altogether just shalt thou fol- 
 low" 1 ; likewise, "To me belongeth vengeance, and 
 recompense. ' ' 2 Therefrom comes the true maxim : 
 "Wer wiederschldgt, der ist unrecht"; and again, 
 "Niemand kann sein eigner Richter sein." Sedi- 
 tion is nothing else than judging and avenging 
 one's self. God cannot suffer that, and therefore 
 it is not possible but that sedition will ever make 
 conditions worse, because it is against God and 
 God is not with it. 3 
 
 1 Deuteronomy xvi., 20. 2 Deuteronomy xxxii., 35. 
 
 J Eine treue Vermahnung zu alien Christen, sich zu huten vor 
 
 10 
 
146 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 This is a strong and stirring appeal to do every- 
 thing orderly, constitutionally, and regularly; 
 and these principles continued unchanged through- 
 out Luther's entire life. He was in sympathy 
 with many though not all of the peasants' 
 aims, when they rose in their insurrection. He 
 urged the princes and the lords to consider the 
 condition of the lower classes and make their 
 life more bearable; but when the peasants, in 
 their violence, by fire and sword, engaged in 
 wild, wanton, and lawless destruction of life and 
 property, he sternly opposed and denounced their 
 lawlessness, and urged the princes to suppress 
 the riots and the rioters at all cost. The murderer 
 and the common criminal, he asserted, fully recog- 
 nise government at large, but forcibly wrong an 
 individual; but the rioter, the anarchist, recognises 
 no government and respects no authority, but 
 strikes at the very roots of civil law and order. 
 
 The criticism by various writers of Luther's 
 appeal to the German princes to suppress the 
 riots and lawlessness murder, pillage, destruction 
 of property, and the recognition of no individual 
 or governmental rights of the peasants in their 
 uprisings, is not well founded. One writer, for 
 example, declares that in his attitude towards the 
 
 Aufruhr und Emporung (1522). Weimar ed., 8 Band, 670 et 
 seq. 
 
Right of Reform and Revolution 147 
 
 peasants, Luther was "outrageous" and "incon- 
 sistent." 1 Another says: "When all is said that 
 can reasonably be said in explanation of his 
 action, we cannot help feeling that the language 
 of this pamphlet 2 is an ineffaceable stain on 
 Luther, which no extenuating circumstances can 
 wipe out. It remains the greatest blot on his 
 noble life and career." 3 
 
 As a matter of fact, Luther cannot be justly 
 criticised for his position in this matter, for his 
 attitude, properly understood, is the unquestioned 
 attitude of the modern state, and is recognised 
 as absolutely necessary to the public peace, order, 
 and safety and the protection of all rightful 
 interests. Two wrongs do not make a right; and 
 wrongs, where they exist, are to be righted orderly 
 and lawfully. No government can stand, without 
 maintaining law and order and suppressing 
 violence and lawlessness. The very life of the 
 state as well as that of society itself is involved. 
 
 Luther himself explained his attitude, and it 
 should be carefully noted. 4 He says that the 
 maxims dealing with mercy belong to the kingdom 
 
 Mackinnon: A History of Modern Liberty, ii., 107. 
 
 2 Wider die rduberischen und morderischen Rotten der 
 Bauern (1525). Weimar ed. f 18 Band, 344 etseq. 
 
 3 Lindsay: Luther and the German Reformation, p. 186. 
 
 * Ein Sendbrief von dem harten Buchlein wider die Bauern 
 (1525). Weimar ed., 18 Band, 375 et seq. 
 
148 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 of God and among Christians, not to the kingdom 
 of the world, which is the instrument of godly 
 wrath upon the wicked. The instrument in the 
 hand of the state is not a garland of roses or a 
 flower of love, but a naked sword. As I de- 
 clared at the time, he says, so declare I yet: 
 Let every one who can, as he may be able, cut, 
 stab, choke, and strike the stiff-necked, obdurate, 
 blind, infatuated peasants; that mercy may be 
 shown towards those who are destroyed, driven 
 away, and misled by the peasants; that peace and 
 security may be had. It is better to mercilessly 
 cut off one member rather than lose the entire 
 body, through fire or plague. Furthermore, the 
 insurgents are notoriously faithless, perjured, 
 disobedient, riotous thieves, robbers, murderers, 
 and blasphemers, so that there is not one of 
 them but has well deserved death ten times over 
 without mercy. If my advice had been followed 
 in the very beginning, and a few lives had been 
 taken, before the insurrection assumed such large 
 proportions, thousands of lives that have been 
 lost would have been saved. The experience 
 should make all parties involved wiser. 
 
 If it be said, he continues, that I myself 
 teach lawlessness when I urge all who can to 
 cut down the rioters, my reply is: My booklet 
 was not written against common evil-doers, but 
 
Right of Reform and Revolution 149 
 
 against seditious rioters. There is a marked 
 distinction between such a one and a murderer 
 or robber or other ordinary criminal ; for a mur- 
 derer or similar criminal lets the head and 
 civil authority itself stand, and attacks merely 
 its members or its property. He, indeed, fears 
 the government. Now, while the head remains, 
 no individual should attack the murderer, be- 
 cause the head (civil authority) can punish him, 
 but should wait for the judgment and sentence of 
 that authority to which God has given the sword 
 and the office. 
 
 But the rioter attacks the head itself, so that 
 his offence bears no comparison with that of the 
 murderer. In this case, there can be no delay 
 awaiting the action and the judgment of the head, 
 for the latter has been seized and held in check; 
 and every one who can should hasten, without 
 waiting for solicitation or command, and, as a 
 faithful member, help rescue its head by stabbing, 
 cutting, throttling. For lawless rioting is no 
 jest, and there is no wickedness on earth com- 
 parable to it. Other wrongs are single crimes, but 
 rioting and insurrection are a deluge of all crimes 
 combined. Such lawlessness does not deserve 
 judgment or mercy, whether it take place among 
 heathen, Jews, Turks, Christians, or anywhere, 
 but is already heard, judged, sentenced, and 
 
150 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 delivered over to death in the hand of any and 
 every one. But Luther reminds the rulers 
 that, when order has been restored and the rioting 
 suppressed, they are to show mercy not only to 
 the innocent, but also to the guilty. 
 
 In a letter addressed to the Elector John, 
 written more than three months before the Diet 
 of Augsburg, of 1530, Luther states 1 that he 
 has conferred with his friends Jonas, Pommer, and 
 Melanchthon on the subject of the right of defence 
 against the emperor, should he attempt to wage 
 war on the Protestant princes and people on 
 account of their faith. Some, perhaps, might con- 
 clude that, according to imperial or civil law, 
 the subject would have a right to protect himself 
 against the emperor in such a case, particularly 
 because that ruler had bound himself under oath 
 to respect all established liberty and not to forcibly 
 invade the rights of the subjects. 
 
 But, according to the Scripture, it is in no way 
 becoming for any one who wants to be a Christian 
 to oppose the civil authority over him whether 
 it does right or wrong. A Christian should endure 
 violence and wrong from his ruler. For though 
 
 Von der Gegenwehr, so die Evangelischen um des Evan- 
 geliums willen mit Krieg uberzogen wurden. Schreiben an 
 Churfurst Johann zu Sachsen die Gegenwehr belangend (March 
 6, 1530). Walch ed, x., 532 et seq. 
 
Right of Reform and Revolution 151 
 
 the emperor do wrong, fail in his duty, and break 
 his oath, his imperial authority and the obedience 
 of his subjects are not suspended, so long as the 
 empire and the electoral princes keep and retain 
 him as emperor and do not depose him. If an 
 emperor or a prince break all of God's command- 
 ments, he remains nevertheless emperor or prince, 
 and is under much higher obligation to God than 
 to men. Were it now sufficient reason for man to 
 resist the emperor that he does wrong, then in 
 every case, as often as he acts against God, could 
 he be resisted by men. 
 
 Under such conditions there would remain no 
 authority or obedience at all in the world ; because 
 the subject or servant would present the plea 
 that his ruler had committed a wrong against 
 God. 
 
 But, inasmuch as the emperor remains emperor, 
 and the prince remains prince, though he break 
 all God's commandments, indeed even though 
 he be a heathen; so is he the same if he break his 
 oath and engagements, until deposed or until he 
 ceases to be emperor. Christ's saying stands fast: 
 " Render therefore unto Caesar the things which 
 are Caesar's" 1 ; and, "Honour the king." 2 For 
 we are to be obedient subjects in all fear not only 
 to the good and pious, but also to the wicked and 
 
 * Matthew xxii., 21. 2 i Peter ii., 17. 
 
152 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 incapable lords. In short, wrong-doing does not 
 release authority and obedience; but the penalty 
 will do so; that is, if the empire and the electoral 
 princes, acting in accord, depose the emperor, 
 that he be emperor no longer. But as long as 
 he is unpunished and remains emperor, no one 
 should withhold obedience or strive against him; 
 for that is treason, rebellion, and dissension.^ 
 
 If the emperor, while emperor, take steps against 
 the subjects of the empire, it is not for the princes 
 to forcibly resist, let every man look to himself; 
 but if the emperor go further and seek to compel 
 the princes to attack, persecute, kill, and drive 
 away their subjects, on account of the Gospel, 
 and the princes believe or know that the emperor 
 does wrong or acts against God in the matter, then 
 it affects their own faith and they should not 
 obey the emperor and not consent, assist, or 
 participate in such wrong-doing. It is enough 
 that they leave land and people unprotected and 
 the emperor unhindered, and say: If the emperor 
 will annoy our subjects, as also his own, he may 
 do so on his conscience, we cannot prevent it; 
 but we will not assist him in it, nor will we consent 
 to it. "We ought to obey God rather than 
 men.?* 
 
 In a letter written about eight months after 
 
 1 Acts of the Apostles v., 29. 
 
Right of Reform and Revolution 153 
 
 the famous Diet of Augsburg, 1 Luther takes 
 occasion to deny a rumour that there has been a 
 change in his attitude on the subject. He still 
 maintains that full obedience is to be rendered 
 the civil authorities, except in so far as the powers 
 of the ruler may be subject to constitutional 
 limitations, or he may have waived and agreed 
 to certain stipulations or conditions, or may have 
 exceeded his authority, as the courts may in- 
 vestigate and determine. In the case in hand as 
 to resistance to Charles V he declares he awaits 
 the decision of the jurists. 
 
 In a letter written a month later, 2 Luther repeats 
 his conviction that a Christian must not resist the 
 powers that be ; but he makes a distinction between 
 the Christian and the citizen, that is, between the 
 member of the body of Christ and the member 
 of the body politic. As a citizen, he agrees with 
 the jurists that resistance against the emperor 
 is admissible; and, although as a theologian he 
 will not advise any Christian to resist, he leaves 
 it to each individual conscience to decide how he 
 shall act. 
 
 1 Schrift an Lazarus Spengler, Geheimer Rath zu Nurnberg, 
 ob man dem Kaiser wider stehen solle (Feb. 15, 1531). Walch 
 ed., x., 570^ seq. 
 
 2 Gegenwehr wider den Kaiser: Letter of March 18, 1531, to 
 a citizen of Nurnberg. Walch ed., x., 568 et seq. 
 
154 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 The following argument appears in a document 1 
 written by Luther about the same time : 
 
 This is my honest advice in case the emperor were 
 to declare war against us on account of the pope's 
 affairs or our teaching though I do not believe it of 
 him as yet; that no one should let himself be so used, 
 or obey the emperor, but be assured that in such a 
 matter he is strictly forbidden by God to obey him, 
 and let him know who does obey him that he is 
 disobeying God and will eternally lose body and soul ; 
 for the emperor then conducts himself not only 
 contrary to God and His law, but likewise contrary 
 to his own imperial rights, oaths, duty, seal, and 
 letters. And that you may not think that this is 
 merely my fancy or that I give this counsel out of 
 my own head, I set forth the ground and reasons for 
 the same so strong and clear that you may understand 
 that it is not merely my personal advice, but the 
 earnest and manifold strong command of God, Whose 
 wrath you should and finally must fear. 
 
 The first reason why you should not obey and 
 fight for the emperor in such a matter is that you 
 as well as the emperor himself vowed in baptism 
 to defend, and not persecute or deny, the Gospel 
 of Christ. . . . The second reason is that, were our 
 teaching not true, though everybody knows other- 
 
 1 D. Martin Luther s Warnung an seine lieben Deutschen 
 (in den ersten Monaten des Jahrs 1531). Walch ed., xvi., 
 1616 et seq. 
 
Right of Reform and Revolution 155 
 
 wise you should be deterred from participating 
 in and becoming guilty before God of the atrocities 
 that have taken place and will take place under the 
 papacy. The third reason why you should not obey 
 such a mandate of the emperor is that, if you did so, 
 you would not only participate in and help strengthen 
 such abominations, but that you would also help 
 to destroy and root up all the good that is produced 
 and done through the Holy Gospel. If you are open 
 to advice, you have warning enough here that you 
 should not obey the emperor and your princes in 
 such case, as the Apostle declares: "We ought to 
 obey God rather than men" (Acts v., 29). 
 
 The opinions of the jurists, to whom Luther 
 deferred in the matter of forcible resistance against 
 the emperor when he threatened princes and 
 people with force on account of their faith, is 
 shown in an interesting document setting forth a 
 classification of cases in which it would be justi- 
 fiable to resist judges and courts in their acts and 
 decisions. 1 They declare that it is held by various 
 legal authorities cited that opposition may be of- 
 fered where a judge without jurisdiction proceeds 
 
 i Etlicher Rechtsgelehrten zu Wittenberg Meinung von der 
 Frage: Ob man einem Richter, der unrechtmdssig procedirt, 
 Widerstand thun moge (without date). Walch ed., x., 558 et 
 seq. Also see : Drittes Bedenken der Theologen (Luther, Jonas, 
 Bugenhagen, Amsdorf, and Melanchthon) zu Wittenberg von der 
 Gegenwehr (without date). Walch ed., x., 562 et seq. 
 
156 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 with a case, where an appeal has been taken to a 
 higher court, where a judge proceeds irregularly, 
 where an injury is irreparable, or where a sentence 
 is plainly and notoriously unjust and contrary to 
 law. The emperor has no jurisdiction or authority 
 in matters of faith : in such case, he has no author- 
 ity, power, or right. Concerning this, he is only 
 a private individual, and has no power to decide 
 or to decree what people are to hold and believe. 
 Resistance may be offered to a judge who acts 
 without jurisdiction, proceeds contrary to law, 
 or where an appeal has been taken from his de- 
 cision. How much more, then, may resistance be 
 offered to one who is not a judge at all in a given 
 matter, and has no jurisdiction or dominion over 
 the case? 
 
 In a paper signed by Luther and three of his 
 co-workers, 1 at a time when the emperor was 
 preparing to proceed against the Protestants to 
 destroy them on account of their faith, an opinion 
 is expressed as to whether it is the duty of the 
 civil government to protect itself and its subjects 
 against unlawful violence offered by princes or 
 
 Viertes Bedenken der Theologen zu Wittenberg von der 
 Gegenwehr. Signed by Luther, Jonas, Bucer, and Melanch- 
 thon (January, 1539). Walch ed., x., 566 et seq. Bluntschli: 
 Deutsches Staatsworterbuch, article on Luther. Scherger; The 
 Evolution of Modern Liberty, pp. 106, 107. 
 
Right of Reform and Revolution 157 
 
 emperor alike, especially in religious matters. 
 Without doubt, they declare, it is God's truth 
 that not only should defence be permitted, but 
 every government is truly and earnestly com- 
 manded and in duty bound to protect and defend 
 itself if any person civil authority or otherwise 
 undertake to compel it to accept idolatry and 
 forbidden worship : likewise if any one attempt 
 to exercise any unjust power over its subjects. 
 This is repeatedly commanded in the word of 
 God. 
 
 And as the Gospel confirms the office of civil 
 authority, natural and established laws likewise 
 confirm it. Every father, without doubt, is in 
 duty bound, according to his ability, to protect 
 wife and child against public murder; and there 
 is no difference between an individual murderer 
 and the emperor should he, beyond or outside the 
 jurisdiction of his office, exercise unlawful authority 
 and especially openly or notoriously unlawful 
 authority. For open violence releases all duties 
 between the subject and the ruler by natural law. 
 Such is the case when the ruler endeavours to 
 force his subjects into blasphemy and idolatry. 
 
 Luther declares further that when the ban has 
 been made public against one or more members 
 of a league or alliance, the enemy has declared 
 war, and the parties on the defensive may take 
 
158 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 notice thereof without waiting for actual attack, 
 and take steps for their protection in accordance 
 with the tenor of natural and written law, in 
 view of the prescribed rule that the Gospel does 
 not prohibit but confirms the office and natural 
 right of civil authority. While this is true, it is 
 not proper immediately to conclude to make an 
 attack. The lords should consider whether it is 
 expedient, or whether perhaps there is not another 
 course that may be pursued. 
 
 As to whether the estates may protect and 
 defend themselves if the emperor forcibly and 
 tyrannically attack and make war upon them, 
 Luther, as late as February, I539, 1 expressed the 
 fond hope that Charles V, of himself, was not the 
 kind of a man to wage such a war; but the pope 
 and the bishops and it must be remembered 
 that Rome claimed and indeed exercised over a 
 given territory a civil authority, as well as ecclesi- 
 astical would like to use him as their champion 
 against the plain, clear, and evident truth. For 
 the emperor, as king and lord, has no cause or 
 complaint against the princes and lords, but the 
 
 i Schrift an Johann Lubeck, Pfarrer in Cotbus, von der 
 Gegenwehr (Feb. 8, 1539). Walch ed., x., 554 et seq. It is 
 not incumbent on the subject to obey unauthorised or un- 
 constitutional commands from civil authority. See also 
 Bedenken an den Kanzler D. Gregor Bruck von der Gegenwehr, 
 (1539). Walch ed., x., 548 et seq. 
 
Right of Reform and Revolution 159 
 
 pope makes one where there is none that he may 
 lead and involve the emperor in a dangerous 
 contest. And as it is right to fight against the 
 Turks and protect and defend ourselves, how 
 much more justifiable and praiseworthy is it here 
 to war against the pope and his followers, who 
 are worse than the Turks. 
 
 If his imperial majesty join the papal or Turkish 
 armies, Luther argues, he may expect a like 
 reward. "Our princes have therefore decided 
 that in such case his imperial majesty is not 
 emperor but a warrior, servant, and robber of the 
 pope, as the latter in such a war is the real leader 
 and emperor. This is the attitude of our estates. 
 The German princes have more right as against 
 the emperor than the people in that day had 
 against Saul, and Ahikam against Jehoiakim. 
 The emperor is not an autocrat; and it is not 
 within his authority to depose the electoral princes 
 and change the form and glory of the empire; and 
 it is not to be permitted, should he attempt it. 
 Inasmuch as this could not and dare not be per- 
 mitted in any way as affecting business matters 
 and temporal affairs, how much less is it to be 
 endured if his imperial majesty begin and wage 
 a war for a foreign cause and in the interests of 
 the devil. If his majesty does not know that 
 the cause is so evil, it is nevertheless sufficient 
 
160 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 for us that we know it and are certain of 
 it." 
 
 It is well known how incessantly and earnestly 
 Luther preached and wrote against rebellion 
 and insurrection. He maintained that of the 
 two ways by which wrongs may be righted 
 (i) the way of peace, that is, reform; and (2) the 
 way of war, that is, revolution the former method 
 is the safer and the better. "He never had any 
 sympathy with an armed uprising to effect the 
 most legitimate reforms." 1 He was opposed to 
 doing wrong in order to effect good. He con- 
 sidered the means to be employed as well as the 
 end in view. Legal and constitutional measures 
 properly taken are the Christian method of reform. 
 The citizen may influence the government, the 
 administration, the civil authorities, in any way 
 he can peacefully, but he is not to use force and 
 violence except in self-defence. This principle 
 of submission to legitimate authority and refusal 
 to endorse revolution is applicable only to the 
 subject of an established government carried on 
 in accordance with its constitutional rights and 
 principles. It does not apply in any sense, with 
 Luther, to the state's right to suppress riot and 
 lawlessness, maintain peace within, and defend 
 itself against foes without. 
 
 Lindsay: Luther and the German Reformation, p. 182. 
 
Right of Reform and Revolution 161 
 
 Attention has already been called to the pactum 
 St. Augustine holds was agreed upon between 
 kings and people in which is to be found the 
 beginning of the idea that government rests upon 
 the consent of the governed. From his day to 
 the time of Gregory VII, this theory was in a 
 measure preserved in the election of the German 
 King by the people. Alongside of it was the 
 theory that God gave the power of government 
 to the people, and that they, in turn, gave it to 
 the kings. 1 Not only did the Germanic law itself, 
 but also the various contracts and agreements 
 between princes and estates help to strengthen 
 this theory. Appeal was made to the Bible, 
 which tells of a contract made at Hebron between 
 David and the people of Israel. 2 The jurists 
 proclaimed the principle that, according to the 
 ius gentium, every free people may set a superior 
 over itself. 3 Nicholas of Cusa declared that, 
 since all men are by nature free, then government 
 rests on the consent of the governed. 4 
 
 The state, according to the modern view, has 
 no right to do wrong. To resist civil government 
 
 1 Sullivan: The Antecedents of the Declaration of Independ- 
 ence, p. 7 5. 
 
 2 2 Samuel v., 3. 
 
 3 Gierke: Political Theories of the "Middle Age, p. 39. 
 * De Concordantia Catholica, ii., 12, 14. 
 
162 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 per se is to resist the ordinance of God. It is 
 wrong to refuse obedience to that which is right; 
 but, on the other hand, it is right to refuse obe- 
 dience to that which is wrong. This is not resist- 
 ing the ordinance of God. A people, a nation, 
 a government, has the right of reforming its 
 constitution, its laws, its form, its purpose and 
 functions, the better to secure and enjoy the 
 benefits of government. Every one of these 
 modern principles was recognised and asserted 
 by Luther nearly four centuries ago. He gives 
 rightful authority the recognition it commands in 
 the civilised world to-day. ''Once existing, the 
 state is inviolable. The government which repre- 
 sents the state, may be amended. The government 
 which misrepresents and betrays the state, may 
 be overthrown. But they who assail the state 
 itself, assail the condition of all civilised rational 
 life their own included and, so far forth, are 
 suicides, as well as traitors to God and man." 1 
 
 1 Chamberlain : The State, its Nature, Origin, and Functions, 
 P- 34- 
 
CHAPTER VII 
 
 THE OBJECTS OF THE STATE 
 
 rthe state has always existed and is necessary 
 to man, it has a purpose, and this purpose it is 
 the function of government to accomplish. In 
 other words, government is the means by which 
 the ends of the state may be secured. To say 
 that the mere continuance of its own existence is 
 the end of the state, does not satisfactorily answer 
 the question. Its aim, its object, cannot be and 
 is not simply to maintain its own life, but to be 
 and to do something for its subjects and for the 
 world. That which is of no service to man or 
 people is not necessary and will not abide. Yet 
 it is generally agreed that, viewed from different 
 standpoints, the state is both a means and an 
 end. Its highest end is the highest end, the high- 
 est possible development, of the individual 1 ; and 
 thus it is a means for the advantage of the individ- 
 
 i M'Kechnie: The State and the Individual, p. 78. "The 
 best life" is the same both for the state and the individual. 
 See Aristotle: Politics, vii., 14, 15. 
 
 163 
 
1 64 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 uals who compose it. But from another stand- 
 point, viewed as having an existence apart from 
 the individual, it has an end in itself, and its 
 citizens are subordinate to it and bound to serve 
 it for its own sake. 1 The ancient view of the 
 state may be said, in a degree, to have overlooked 
 the individual in placing emphasis on the omni- 
 potence and prerogatives of the state; while the 
 modern view rather overlooks the majesty and the 
 power of the state in putting great stress upon 
 personal liberty, sometimes bordering on license. 
 
 The phrase we are considering may be used in 
 different senses. There is the conscious end of 
 the state, referring to that which is considered and 
 planned and for which men work; the actual end, 
 having reference to that which is really accom- 
 plished, and this may be either more or less than 
 the conscious end; the practicable end, looking to 
 that which is feasible and attainable, under given 
 conditions 2 ; and the highest conceivable or ideal 
 end, which is unattainable, at least in our day, 
 but which is a distant star on which men fondly 
 gaze. 3 All these various ways of considering the 
 
 1 Bluntschli: The Theory of the State, p. 289. Willoughby: 
 An Examination of the Nature of the State, p. 317. 
 
 2 Willoughby: An Examination of the Nature of the State, 
 
 P- 39- 
 
 3 Bluntschli declares: "The end of the state must be recog- 
 nisable by men, it must be determined by human nature, 
 
The Objects of the State 165 
 
 aims of the state have shifted and changed from 
 generation to generation and among different 
 peoples and conditions; but it will be generally 
 conceded that the true end of the state is of the 
 nature of an ultimate. It has been progressive, 
 and may be expected to continue so. "To know 
 the ideal end of the state would be to know the 
 end of life itself." 1 
 
 The subject is one of such deep interest and 
 great importance that it merits serious considera- 
 tion. It has formed the basis of much speculation 
 and many theories. This diversity of views has 
 given rise to a classification of theories of the 
 possible and desirable aims of the state into (i) 
 the anarchistic, maintaining that all government 
 is not only essentially an evil, but an unnecessary 
 evil; (2) the individualistic or laissez faire, which 
 limits the province of the state to protection of 
 property, life, and liberty; (3) the common welfare; 
 and (4) the socialistic and communistic, 2 which 
 tend to the other extreme of having the individual 
 look to the state for direction and assistance in all 
 
 and it must be at any rate nearly attainable by human effort." 
 Theory of the State, p. 293. But this would not necessarily 
 apply to the ideal end. 
 
 Taylor: The Individual and the State, p. 52. 
 
 2 Willoughby: An Examination of the Nature of the State, 
 p. 318. 
 
1 66 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 the affairs of life. 1 Between these classes is to be 
 found every grade and shade of difference. 
 
 Furthermore, in all theory and in all life, there 
 has been a constant conflict between the claims 
 of those who urge large governmental supervision 
 and of those who urge as little governmental in- 
 terference as possible, leaving the individual free 
 to enjoy the greatest degree of liberty. It has ap- 
 peared to many as if the state and the individual 
 were opposing factors, and that the higher the 
 state is raised, the lower the individual is de- 
 pressed; that the more power is conferred on the 
 state, the less liberty and opportunity is given to 
 the individual. On closer inspection, however, 
 it will be found that it is possible at least within 
 certain limits to elevate the state, increase its 
 power, enlarge its jurisdiction, and increase its 
 functions, and at the same time raise the standard 
 of the individual, multiplying his opportunities 
 for development, and give him greater possibilities 
 and a larger life. The only way to raise the 
 nation is to raise the average individual. It is a 
 mistake to think that whatever adds to the state 
 subtracts from the individual. ''Error must re- 
 sult from such a position, not merely because 
 of its unscientific arithmetical conception of the 
 relation of the individual to the state, but also 
 
 1 Wilson: The State, p. 629. 
 
The Objects of the State 167 
 
 because it leaves entirely out of account a third 
 most important factor, an intermediate organisa- 
 tion, society. The state and society are not 
 identical and must not be confounded. . . . 
 The distinction between the state and society lies, 
 not in the presence or absence of coercion, but in 
 the presence or absence of law, which is something 
 more than mere force." 1 It will be found that in 
 the last analysis the best interests of the individual 
 and of the state coincide, and that co-operation 
 is the line of development. 
 
 A distinction must be drawn between political 
 and individual freedom. Political freedom applies 
 to the degree in which the people participate 
 generally in the affairs of the state, or at least 
 direct the manner in which its powers shall be 
 exercised. Individual freedom refers to the degree 
 in which the "private rights of life, liberty, and 
 property are secured. " 2 Either one may exist in 
 a high degree and the other in a low degree. A 
 high degree of political freedom may be found, as it 
 was among the early Teutons, with relatively small 
 protection to private rights. Individual rights 
 may be well protected, as under the Roman 
 Empire, with little political freedom. It is like- 
 
 Taylor: The Individual and the State, pp. 38, 40. 
 8 Willoughby: An Examination of the Nature of the State, 
 pp. 312, 313. 
 
1 68 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 wise true that in a democracy there may be little 
 respect for individual rights, while in a monarchy 
 there may be found a high regard for them. 
 
 The mere enumeration of various theories held 
 as to the aim of the state would be no small task. 
 It will be sufficient to notice some of the more 
 important. Aristotle declares: "Every state is a 
 community of some kind, and every community 
 is established with a view to some good; for man- 
 kind always act in order to obtain that which they 
 think good. But, if all communities aim at some 
 good, the state or political community, which is 
 the highest of all, and which embraces all the 
 rest, aims, and in a greater degree than any other, 
 at the highest good. . . . The state comes into 
 existence, originating in the bare needs of life, 
 and continuing in existence for the sake of a good 
 life. . . . Justice is the bond of men in states, 
 and the administration of justice, which is the 
 determination of what is just, is the principle of 
 order in political society." 1 "Complete life in 
 the associated state" is Aristotle's view of the 
 aim of the state. It must be remembered, how- 
 ever, that the citizens for whose welfare Aristotle 
 conceived the state to exist were only a limited 
 and privileged class of wealth, culture, and 
 leisure. Slaves even skilled labourers were 
 
 1 Aristotle: Politics, i., i, . 
 
The Objects of the State 169 
 
 not included in the government. Their interests, 
 their comfort, and their welfare were not to be 
 overlooked by the statesman, but they were 
 deemed incapable of true happiness. 1 
 
 According to the ancient view in general, and 
 particularly that of the Greeks, the theory was 
 that the individual serves the state, not the state 
 the individual. The state was viewed as the 
 highest aim, the perfection of humanity. It was, 
 therefore, an end in itself. "The welfare of 
 private men was therefore unhesitatingly sacri- 
 ficed to that of the state, and in fact the former 
 was only so far justified and valuable as it was 
 serviceable to the welfare of the state." 2 
 
 Dante adopted Aristotle's doctrine that the 
 merit of government may be tested by its pro- 
 motion of the general welfare of all its subjects. 
 He declared: "Since the monarch is full of love 
 for men, ... he will have all men good, which 
 cannot be if they live under perverted constitu- 
 tions . . . and the aim of such rightful common- 
 wealths is liberty, to wit that men may live for 
 their own sake. . . . Though a consul or king in 
 regard of means be the lords of others, yet in 
 regard to the end they are the servants of others : 
 
 1 Pollock: An Introduction to the History of the Science of 
 Politics, p. 28. 
 
 a Bluntschli: The Theory of the State, p. 287. 
 
170 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 and most of all the monarch, who without doubt 
 is to be deemed the servant of all." 1 In Dante, 
 the institution of a universalis pax is the aim and 
 object of the empire. 2 This thought was ex- 
 pressed by the Councils of Paris and Worms, 829 
 A.D., which declared it to be the aim of govern- 
 ment "to rule the folk with righteousness and 
 equity, to preserve peace and unity." 3 
 
 Marsilius of Padua held that government is 
 established to maintain peace, and that the state 
 exists to render the higher life possible. 4 He has 
 in mind a solicitude on the part of the state for 
 the bene vivere of its citizens, on earth and in 
 heaven as well, and therefore includes morals and 
 general welfare in its aims. In short, he makes 
 the church a state institution. The line of demar- 
 cation between church and state is always a 
 line between two classes of affairs, and not a line 
 between two classes of people. 5 The state regu- 
 lates and administers the affairs of the church, 
 admitting to the priesthood, regulating its func- 
 tions, appointing, paying, and removing clergymen. 
 
 1 Pollock: An Introduction to the History of the Science of 
 Politics, pp. 37, 38. 
 
 2 Gierke: Political Theories of the Middle Age, p. 188. 
 Ibid., p. 142. 
 
 4 Defensor Pads, i., i. Bullowa, History of the Theory of 
 Sovereignty, p. 21. 
 
 s Defensor Pacis, i., 4-6; ii., 2, 7, 14, 17, 18, 21. 
 
The Objects of the State 171 
 
 The state itself should issue, at all events it should 
 authorise, interdicts, excommunications, fasts, 
 feasts, and other ecclesiastical acts. Education 
 belongs exclusively to the state. The church can 
 have no temporal power or authority except as 
 given by the state. Councils should be summoned 
 by the civil government. Church property is at 
 the disposal of the government, and it may be 
 freely taxed therefor, and, if necessary, may be 
 secularised and sold by the state. 1 
 
 Thomas Aquinas regarded the virtuous life 
 as the object of the state. The virtus humana of 
 the people is the means employed by human 
 government to realise, or at least cultivate and 
 promote the virtus divina, which the church aims 
 to secure. 2 
 
 Generally speaking, the mediaeval view of the 
 state was that of an indirect theocracy, according 
 to which the ruler was looked upon as God's 
 vicegerent. Unity of belief and of creed were 
 fundamental doctrines of that age. 3 Islam, too, 
 viewed the kingdom of God on earth as entrusted 
 by Him to the Sultan. The theocratic theory 
 of the duty of the state bases it upon service to 
 
 1 Gierke: Political Theories of the Middle Age, pp. 189, 
 191, 192. 
 
 2 De Reg. Princ., i., 14. Gierke: Political Theories of the 
 Middle Age, p. 189. 
 
 Bluntschli: The Theory of the State, p. 58. 
 
172 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 God, and the establishment of His kingdom 
 upon earth. Its aim is to establish and maintain 
 God's rule and commands in society, including 
 justice, discipline and morality. The Reforma- 
 tion energetically revived the theocratic view of 
 the aim of civil government. The Protestant 
 reformers generally maintained a Christian aim 
 and a divine nature for civil authority. Melanch- 
 thon declared, however, that rulers must not act 
 contrary to the will of the people for they have 
 received their power from them. 1 He viewed the 
 ultimate aim of the state to be the establishment 
 among men of the true knowledge of God, and 
 described the government as the guardian of the 
 two tables of the law. The magistrate, therefore, 
 according to his view, should forbid heresy and 
 punish heretics. 2 
 
 John Stuart Mill fixed the limit of the state's 
 activity by self-protection. 3 In his view, the 
 great aim of government is progress, which neces- 
 sarily includes the maintenance of order. There 
 must be an understanding and recognition of the 
 purposes to be promoted and the objects to be 
 
 1 Scherger: Evolution of Modern Liberty, p. 105. 
 
 2 Geffcken: Church and State, i. 328. Dunning: Political 
 Theories from Luther to Montesquieu, p. 14 et seq. 
 
 3 Pollock: An Introduction to the History of the Science of 
 Politics, p. 124. 
 
The Objects of the State 173 
 
 accomplished. 1 Liberty for each individual is 
 the absolute end. Herbert Spencer repeated the 
 thought of Kant that "it is the duty and eventual 
 tendency of society to allow the widest liberty 
 to each of its component individual members 
 compatible with the equal liberty of all." 
 
 Locke's view of the end of government is the 
 "good of mankind"; 2 and Professor Huxley 
 declared this "the noblest and at the same time 
 briefest statement of the purpose of government" 
 known to him. 3 It is true that Locke considered 
 the great and chief end of men uniting into com- 
 monwealths, and putting themselves under govern- 
 ment to be the preservation of their property. 4 
 To Wilhelm von Humboldt, "the maintenance 
 of security, as well with regard to the attacks of 
 foreign enemies as to the danger of- internal 
 discord, constitutes the true end of the state, and 
 must especially occupy its activity." 5 William 
 of Ockham held that government should promote 
 the liberty and exclude the slavery of its subjects. 6 
 
 * M'Kechnie: The State and the Individual, p. 79. 
 2 On Civil Government, ii., par. 229. 
 
 * Method and Results, p. 278. M'Kechnie: The State and 
 the Individual, p. 75. 
 
 * On Civil Government, ii., par. 124. 
 
 5 Sphere and Duties of Government, p. 53. 
 
 6 Octo Quaestiones, iii., 5. Gierke: Political Theories of the 
 Middle Age, p. 142. 
 
174 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 In marked contrast with this more limited 
 activity, Burke, the English philosopher and 
 statesman, looked upon the state as "a partner- 
 ship in all science, a partnership in all art, a 
 partnership in every virtue, and in all perfection. " 1 
 Hegel maintained that morality (Sititickkeit) and 
 the application and realisation of the moral law 
 is the end of the state. 2 
 
 To a political writer of our own day, the modern 
 state's chief function is to punish and prevent 
 wrong. 3 To another, the object of the state 
 should include the perfect development of all its 
 citizens in the highest, noblest, and fullest form 
 of social, political and individual life; i.e., the 
 highest present welfare and future perfection of 
 the individual and of humanity. 4 The end of gov- 
 ernment, according to another, is the facilitation 
 and accomplishment of the objects of organ- 
 ised society. 5 To Bluntschli, it is "the develop- 
 ment of the national capacities, the perfecting 
 of the national life, and, finally, its completion; 
 provided, of course, that the process of moral and 
 political development shall not be opposed to the 
 
 1 Pollock: An Introduction to the History of the Science of 
 Politics, pp. 125, 126. 
 
 2 Bluntschli: The Theory of the State, p. 299. 
 
 3 Taylor: The Individual and the State, p. 50. 
 
 * M'Kechnie: The State and the Individual, p. 74. 
 5 Wilson: The State, p. 639. 
 
The Objects of the State 175 
 
 destiny of humanity. ' ' * This spirit of international 
 helpfulness is recognised by another writer who 
 declares: ''That the state should act as an individ- 
 ual, should maintain good faith, clemency, and 
 moderation, should endeavour to further the 
 world's progress these are some of the most 
 advanced political ideas of the age in which we 
 live." 2 
 
 Turning now to Luther's views on the subject, 
 we find that he maintained that civil rule is to be 
 conducted with a view solely to the best interests 
 of the people and of the country as a whole. 
 Government, in short, is to be in the interests of 
 the governed. Whatever the form of govern- 
 ment may be, it is a sacred trust to be executed 
 as a government for the people. 
 
 In his Appeal to the German Nobility, Luther 
 insists on the principle that civil authority has 
 jurisdiction over all matters involving money, 
 property, and person or honour. 3 After indicat- 
 ing a number of reforms that should be instituted 
 by the civil authorities, he says, in the same 
 document: "In all, however, that I have said 
 
 i Bluntschli: The Theory of the State, p. 300. 
 
 * Jenks: Law and Politics in the Middle Ages, p. 69. 
 
 3 Luther says: " Was Geld, Gut und Leib oder Ehre anbe- 
 trifft, den weltlichen Richtern lassen. " Also see Dunning: 
 History of Political Theories from Luther to Montesquieu, p. 9. 
 
176 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 above, my object has been to show how much good 
 temporal authority may do, and what is the duty 
 of all authorities, so that every person may learn 
 what a serious thing it is to rule and have the 
 chief place. It is the duty of those in authority 
 to seek the good of their subjects." 1 
 
 In a later tract, 2 Luther asserts that the Chris- 
 tian prince must get rid of the idea that he is to 
 rule by force. Cursed is the life that is lived 
 and sought for one's own use and benefit. Cursed 
 are all works that are not done in loveV Govern- 
 ment is established and administered in love when 
 it is carried on not for one's own pleasure, use, 
 honour and convenience, but for the benefit, 
 honour and safety of others. The prince must 
 hold justice in his hand as firmly as the sword 
 and mete it out, sternly on the one hand and 
 tempered with justice on the other hand, as good 
 reason may dictate, so that justice may rule in 
 all things, and that reason may remain the highest 
 law and master of all laws. Above all, the ruler 
 is to consider his subjects and have his heart right 
 towards them. He does this when he seeks, with 
 
 1 An den christlichen Adel deutscher Nation von des christ- 
 lichen Standes Besserung (1520). Weimar ed., 6 Band, 381 
 et seq. 
 
 2 Von weltlicher Oberkeit, wie weit man ihr Gehorsam schuldig 
 sei (1523). Weimar ed., n Band, 229 et seq. 
 
The Objects of the State 177 
 
 all wisdom, to make himself useful and serviceable 
 to them. 1 Let him not think: "Land and people 
 are mine, I will do with them as I please"; but, 
 "I am of the land and of the people, and I must 
 act in such a way as to be of benefit and service 
 to them." He is not to seek how he can be 
 overbearing and imperious, but how his people 
 may be protected and defended in peace. Imitat- 
 ing the spirit and the example of Christ, the ruler 
 is not to seek his own interests in his subjects, 
 but their interests, and he is to serve, protect and 
 defend them, ruling solely that they, and not he 
 himself, may have wealth and profit therefrom. 
 Let the prince thus in his heart renounce his 
 power and authority and consider the needs of 
 his subjects and treat these needs as if they were 
 his own. In short, the duty of the prince is four- 
 fold: (i) towards God, with confident trust and 
 devout prayer; (2) towards his subjects, with 
 love and Christian service; (3) towards his 
 counsellors and his mighty men, with clear mind 
 and unprejudiced judgment; and (4) towards 
 evil-doers, with discriminating earnestness and 
 firmness. 
 
 In writing about the uprisings of the peasants, 
 Luther urged the princes to deal more kindly and 
 
 1 Frederick the Great echoed this same thought when he 
 declared of himself: "Ich bin der erste Diener des Staates." 
 
178 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 considerately with their subjects. In his Exhor- 
 tation to Peace he says 1 : 
 
 In the first place, we have no one to thank for 
 such disorders but you princes and lords, especially 
 you blind bishops and insane priests and monks, 
 who even now obdurately cease not to grind and flay 
 the poor common man to keep up your pomp and 
 pride, till he neither can nor will endure it longer. 
 The sword is on your neck, while you think to sit so 
 fast in the saddle that none can unhorse you. This 
 security and presumption will break your necks, as 
 you will see. . . . Yet, unless God be moved by our 
 repentance to avert it, this conspiracy of the peasants 
 must lead to the ruin, wasting and desolation of our 
 German land by horrible murder and bloodshed. 
 For know, dear lords, it is God's doing that men 
 neither can, nor will, nor should, endure your oppres- 
 sion any longer. You must change your ways, and 
 yield to God's word. If you do not do it kindly 
 and voluntarily, you must do it under compulsion 
 and ruin. If these peasants do not accomplish it, 
 others will. . . . If you will take ad vice, my dear lords, 
 for God's sake give place a little to anger. A wagon- 
 load of hay should turn aside for the drunken man. 
 How much more should you cease from your rage 
 and tyranny, and treat the peasants reasonably, 
 as drunken or erring. Do not enter upon a strife 
 
 1 Ermahnung zum Frieden auf die zwolf Artikel der Bauer - 
 schaft in Schwdben (1525). Weimar ed., 18 Band, 279 et seq. 
 
The Objects of the State 179 
 
 with them, for you know not what the end may be. 
 Try kind means, lest a spark be kindled that may 
 light such a flame over all Germany as none can 
 quench. ... A civil ruler is not set in authority 
 that he may seek his own interests and pleasures 
 from his subjects, but that he may secure their best 
 interests. 
 
 In his later years, Luther wrote Count Albrecht 
 of Mansfeld, 1 warning and urging him to cease 
 his tyrannical and oppressive treatment of his 
 subjects. In that letter he exhorts the count not 
 to think that his lordship and all possessions are 
 his own. God will not suffer it. The peasants, 
 burghers, and nobles have their own possessions, 
 although under certain feudal obligations, in 
 accordance with imperial law, but nevertheless 
 confirmed or sanctioned by God, and thus like- 
 wise from divine right. He who wrongfully takes 
 the property of others is in God's sight a thief and 
 a robber. Luther warns the count of the result 
 of such an example, were it to prevail. If the 
 overlord were to appropriate the possessions of 
 his under! ord, the nobleman those of the peasant, 
 the prince those of the nobleman and the count, 
 
 1 Brief von 1542. See Bluntschli: Geschichte der neueren 
 Statswissenschaft, Allgemeines Statsrecht und Politik, p. 65. 
 
i8o Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 it would lead to a government worse than that 
 of the Turk, yes, to a devilish regime. 
 
 Luther insists again and again on the fulfilment 
 of duty in the varied relations of life. 1 The prince 
 is not to rule in the interests of a certain class or 
 classes, but on behalf of the masses and of the 
 people as a whole. Luther does not aim to 
 present a theory of the state, but a system of 
 Christian doctrine. He does not aim to announce 
 a law, but to exhort to pious fulfilment or per- 
 formance of duty. He is in all things a theologian, 
 not a jurist, a preacher and soul-saver, not a 
 statesman. 2 He holds that it is the duty of 
 every community, council, or government to 
 prevent and abolish anything that is contrary 
 to God's will and harmful to men in body and 
 soul. His conception of the state and of the duty 
 of the individual to his neighbour leads directly 
 to that of Hegel. 3 Luther viewed questions con- 
 cerning marriage, political relations, peace and 
 
 Speaking of the momentous changes of the sixteenth 
 century, Mr. Bryce says: "A new explanation of the nature of 
 political society was needed; and from that time onward new 
 theories of state power began at intervals to appear. " Bryce: 
 Studies in History and Jurisprudence, p. 532. 
 
 2 Bluntschli: Geschichte der neueren Statswissenschaft, All- 
 gemeines Statsrecht und Politik, p. 62. 
 
 3 Figgis : Studies of Political Thought from Gerson to Gro- 
 tius, p. 71. 
 
The Objects of the State 181 
 
 war, alliances, obedience to legitimate authority, 
 rebellion, and such matters in the light of Biblical, 
 particularly Christian, principles. 1 
 
 Luther's own attitude is too often confused 
 with the developments and conditions of the 
 following decades and centuries. He himself 
 lived under an imperial confederation in which 
 were included, inter alia, free cities with a con- 
 siderable degree of local government. He thor- 
 oughly believed that the people of a country 
 should govern themselves, 2 though he had no 
 occasion to express a preference for any particular 
 form of government. All government, according 
 
 Raumer: Ueber die geschichtliche Entwickelung der Be- 
 griffe von Recht, Staat und Politik, p. 31. 
 
 2 In the early days of Germany, it appears that the ruler 
 was elected by popular suffrage. Conrad I, according to some 
 historians, was elected by all the Franks, though others 
 declare it was by the princes and chief men, and yet others 
 maintain that it was by all the nations. Conrad II was 
 elected in the year 1024 by the chief men, and his election 
 was confirmed by the people. The same practice was fol- 
 lowed in other later elections. In the early imperial diets, 
 every freeman was entitled to be present. Prescott: Robert- 
 son's History of the Reign of the Emperor Charles V, i., 409, 
 411. All through the later Middle Ages, beginning with the 
 close of the thirteenth century, it was a doctrine quite gen- 
 erally accepted that civil government rests on the consent of 
 the people, who have an original right to choose their own 
 form of government. See Sidgwick: The Development of 
 European Polity, p. 332; and Merriam: History of the Theory 
 of Sovereignty since Rousseau, p. 12. 
 
1 82 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 to his view, is to be on behalf of the governed. 
 In the light of the experiences of the peasants' 
 revolts, he saw reason to doubt the wisdom of 
 giving the unfitted, untrained, and illiterate peas- 
 ant of his day a voice in the direct administration 
 of the government. At the same time, no one 
 urged more strongly than did he the education 
 of the young, so that they might be trained to 
 serve the state intelligently. Similar limitations 
 have been placed upon the right of franchise in the 
 most enlightened nations. Various states of the 
 United States in our own day have disfranchised 
 certain classes of the population on the alleged 
 ground that they are not fitted to participate in the 
 government. ' * In order that popular government 
 should work prosperously," wisely declares a re- 
 cent writer, "two things are above all requisite: 
 first, the people must be free to express their will 
 at the polls; and, second, the people must be suffi- 
 ciently enlightened to express a will that is wise 
 and honest, and not one that is foolish or corrupt. " i 
 Kant and his followers exclude from the juris- 
 diction of the state all matters but juridical. They 
 maintain that the sphere 6f the state is one of 
 law, and that morals are to be regulated by each 
 individual. 2 Kant declared that the object of 
 
 Kelly: Evolution and Effort, pp. 124, 125, 
 
 2 M'Kechnie: The State and the Individual, p. 95. 
 
The Objects of the State 183 
 
 the state its end and safety does not consist in 
 the welfare or happiness of the citizens, but in the 
 agreement of the constitution with the principles 
 of law. 
 
 This legal theory notwithstanding, an enlight- 
 ened state cannot help but consider matters 
 involving moral questions. In its rule and govern- 
 ment over its own subjects and in its relations 
 with other nations alike, such questions are 
 constantly arising. Relations between man and 
 man, between nation and nation, and between 
 man and nation all involve moral considerations. 
 So far as these questions affect the external life 
 of men in society, they properly come within the 
 realm of the state. Not that the state lays down 
 or should lay down fast rules as to any given 
 system of morals; but, for its own protection, as 
 well as its own peace, it must punish and suppress 
 public immorality and give every encouragement 
 to the inculcation of good morals. 1 It cannot 
 leave the subject alone, however much it may 
 wish to do so. "The state is not a merely eco- 
 nomic partnership, even as it is not a merely 
 jural agreement. The state is an organic unity. 
 It moves with a moral energy. It sets itself for 
 
 1 The right of the state to promote morality is discussed in 
 Green : Lectures on the Principles of Political Obligation, pp. 
 206-210. 
 
1 84 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 the highest weal of each and all." 1 Recognised 
 standards of morals are to be found, either openly 
 expressed, or ill-concealed between the lines, in 
 the laws of every civilised country. "The * legal 
 state* may figure prominently in the schools, but 
 it is the 'moral state* which takes its place among 
 the great powers of the world." 2 
 
 Martin Luther, viewing the state as fulfilling 
 a human necessity in the divine dispensation 
 of the world, maintained that it is our highest 
 privilege to serve God by serving one another. 3 
 He applies this principle to the political as well 
 as to the social and religious world. 
 
 Chamberlain: The State, its Nature, Origin and Func- 
 tions, p. 15. 
 
 M'Kechnie: The State and the Individual, p. 97. 
 
 a "No one can read Luther's utterances without perceiving 
 at once that he enunciated the principle of social reconstruc- 
 tion; namely, that we are not competitors but brothers, and 
 that it is our highest privilege to serve God by serving one 
 another. " Nuelsen: Luther the Leader, p. 238. 
 
CHAPTER VIII 
 
 THE FUNCTIONS OF THE STATE 
 
 THE powers which belong to and proceed 
 from the real body-politic the sovereignty 
 of the state constitute government in its differ- 
 ent functions, operating in and through its 
 various departments. These powers may be 
 " divided, distributed, granted, reserved, or re- 
 voked," 1 at the will of the sovereign power. 
 
 The separation of the principal powers of the 
 state 2 has been recognised since the time of 
 Aristotle. 3 He terms them deliberative, magis- 
 terial, and judicial. Governments have changed 
 with the centuries, and so has this classification 
 of powers; yet in a general way Aristotle's division 
 corresponds with the modern one of legislative, 
 
 1 Tapp: The Story of Anglo-Saxon Institutions, p. 5. 
 
 2 These principal or essential functions and powers of 
 government are called constituent functions by Woodrow 
 Wilson. The State, p. 613. 
 
 3 Aristotle: Politics, iv., 14-16. 
 
 185 
 
i86 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 executive, 1 and judicial powers. These powers 
 are variously distributed under different govern- 
 ments 2 but are generally recognised as separate 
 and distinct. 3 
 
 Bodin is recognised as the first to maintain 
 that the prince ought not to administer justice 
 personally, but should leave judicial matters in 
 the hands of independent judges. He argues 
 that if legislative and executive powers were 
 united in the same person, or even in the same 
 body of magistrates, there would be no liberty, 
 because people would be afraid that the monarch 
 or the senate might make tyrannical laws in order 
 to administer them tyrannically. There would be 
 no liberty, again, he declares further, if the judicial 
 power be not separated from the legislative and 
 executive. If it be joined to the legislative power 
 
 Bluntschli considers the term "executive" unfortunate, 
 and prefers "government" or "administration." Theory of 
 the State, pp. 490, 491. 
 
 2 Under our own government, for example, the chief execu- 
 tive participates in legislation. A part of the legislative 
 power the United States Senate participates in the work 
 of the executive, such as confirming nominations to certain 
 appointments. 
 
 3 "The legislative, administrative, and judicial functions 
 are not regarded as militating against the essential and ulti- 
 mate unity of the principle from which they emanate. '' 
 Merriam: History of the Theory of Sovereignty since Rousseau, 
 p. 223. 
 
The Functions of the State 187 
 
 the life and death of the citizens may be arbitrarily 
 disposed of, for the judge will be legislator. If 
 it be joined to the executive power, the judge may 
 have the force of an oppressor. 1 
 
 Montesquieu was the first effectively to call for a 
 subjective as well as objective separation of these 
 great functions of the state, that is, that the differ- 
 ent functions should be exercised by different 
 persons. 2 Not that there is or could be an abso- 
 lute separation, in the sense that the several 
 powers are co-ordinate, independent, and equal; 
 for there must be an interdependence, as between 
 the various members of the human body, and 
 through it all there must be a regulating and 
 controlling power, a power that determines the 
 laws themselves and the relations that shall exist 
 between the parts. This power is the legislative. 
 
 Too much stress cannot be placed upon the 
 importance, indeed the necessity, of each of these 
 general powers of government keeping well within 
 its sphere. George Washington, in speaking of 
 this matter, said: 
 
 It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking 
 in a free country should inspire caution, in those 
 intrusted with its administration, to confine them- 
 selves within their respective constitutional spheres, 
 
 Esprit des Lois, xi., 6. 
 
 Bluntschli: The Theory of the State, p. 487. 
 
i88 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one depart- 
 ment to encroach upon another. The spirit of en- 
 croachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the 
 departments in one, and thus to create, whatever 
 the form of government, a real despotism. A just 
 estimate of that love of power and proneness to abuse 
 it, which predominates in the human heart is suffi- 
 cient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The 
 necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political 
 power by dividing and distributing it into different 
 depositories, and constituting each the guardian of 
 the public weal against invasions by the others, has 
 been evinced by experiments, ancient and modern, 
 some of them in our country and under our own eyes. 
 To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute 
 them.* 
 
 A full recognition of this check and counter- 
 check, as viewed in the days of the establishment 
 of the United States government, is shown in a 
 letter written by John Adams to John Taylor. 
 In it, be says: 
 
 First, the states are balanced against the general 
 government. Second, the house of representatives 
 is balanced against the senate, and the senate against 
 the house. Third, the executive authority is in 
 some degree balanced against the legislature. Fourth, 
 
 i Washington's Farewell Address, 1796. In Bryan: The 
 World's Famous Orations, viii., 99, 100. 
 
The Functions of the State 189 
 
 the judiciary is balanced against the legislature, the 
 executive, and the state governments. Fifth, the 
 senate is balanced against the president in all appoint- 
 ments to office, and in all treaties. Sixth, the people 
 hold in their hands the balance against their own 
 representatives by periodical elections. Seventh, 
 the legislatures of the several states are balanced 
 against the senate by sexennial elections. Eighth, 
 the electors are balanced against the people in choice 
 of president and vice-president. 1 
 
 In the days of feudalism, the baron, the prince, 
 the king, owned the state. It belonged to him. 
 He was himself the state. The functions of 
 government were simply the functions of pro- 
 prietorship. The state had become, under the 
 feudal system, merely a private estate. The 
 conscience of the prince was the only standard of 
 justice; the power of the prince the only conclusive 
 test of prerogative. 2 
 
 But in the age with which we are concerned, 
 the beginning of the sixteenth century, feudalism 
 was rapidly giving way. Notwithstanding the 
 limitations on the powers of the state, it had 
 various functions united in its internal administra- 
 tion. The prince possessed executive and judicial 
 
 1 Willoughby: An Examination of the Nature of the State, 
 P- 399- 
 
 2 Wilson: The State, pp. 6 1 8, 619. 
 
1 90 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 power, and participated in legislation. The state 
 assemblies exercised judicial as well as legislative 
 functions. Without entering into a consideration 
 or discussion of their form, their nature, or their 
 subjective separation, Martin Luther recognised 
 the different spheres of these three great functions. 1 
 He appealed for the enactment of certain legisla- 
 tion; he urged the execution of the laws; he 
 declared that matters of legal right and of constitu- 
 tional law should be left to the jurists and the 
 courts. These several departments of the govern- 
 ment are under obligation to fulfil the general 
 aims and objects of the state i.e., preserve the 
 peace, protect the good, punish the wicked, develop 
 the state and its people, and maintain itself 
 against foreign attack or aggression. These may 
 be called the essential functions of the state. 
 
 Luther maintained that all matters concerning 
 money, property, life, and honour should be left 
 
 1 Luther conceded to the state though from religious 
 motives what the modern state claims as its exclusive right : 
 legislation, administration, justice, in which it recognises 
 no concurrent jurisdiction of the church. . . . His presen- 
 tation of the state was only a little more than the narrow 
 realm of administration of justice. . . . His state is not very 
 much more than an indispensable institution for discipline 
 (training, education) and peace. Bluntschli: Geschichte der 
 neueren Statswissenschaft, Allgemeines Statsrecht und Politik, 
 pp. 60, 61. 
 
The Functions of the State 191 
 
 to the temporal authorities, 1 and that every 
 court is under obligations to judge in accordance 
 with the laws of the land. 2 In writing about the 
 uprisings of the peasants and their various de- 
 mands, he declared that he referred to the jurists 
 (Recktverstdndigen) the questions concerning the 
 rights and privileges of the citizen in the matter 
 of wild game, birds, fish, and wood, and as to 
 forests, service, rent, taxes, etc. It did not become 
 him, he said, as a preacher, to decide and judge 
 in these matters. He considered it his duty to 
 instruct and teach the conscience the things that 
 concern divine and Christian subjects. Further- 
 more, there are books enough on imperial laws. 3 
 The state possesses other functions of a par- 
 ticular nature, that may be termed secondary 
 notwithstanding the fact that some of them are 
 of great importance because they are not essen- 
 tial elements of every state or every government. 
 They are variously termed non-essential, minis- 
 trant, or general welfare functions, and cover 
 industrial, economic, educational, and moral in- 
 terests. They are lines of endeavour pursued 
 
 1 An den christlichen Adel deutscher Nation von des christ- 
 lichen Standes Besserung (1520). Weimar ed., 6 Band, 381 
 et seq. 
 
 2 Bedenken Luther s (without date). Walch ed., x., 356. 
 
 3 fermahnung zum Frieden auf die zwolf Artikel der Bauer- 
 schaft in Schwaben (1525). Weimar ed., 18 Band, 279 et seq. 
 
192 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 by various peoples and governments, but not in 
 any case by all. Conditions and needs change 
 with different countries and different ages. One 
 period and one people need one appeal. Another 
 period and another people need quite a different 
 one. 1 Luther's age called forth from him a 
 ringing appeal for action by the civil authorities 
 in connection with particular functions of the 
 state, and those purposes are worthy of note. 
 
 EDUCATION 
 
 Germany had her monastic schools, in which 
 the training and education, given under the 
 exclusive direction of the church, was largely 
 of an ecclesiastical nature. The language of the 
 church, Latin, was used to the almost total neg- 
 lect of the language of the land. The church also 
 established, during the Middle Ages, cathedral 
 and parochial schools, but these were conducted 
 largely with a view to preparing men for the 
 priesthood, in the former, and for church member- 
 ship, in the latter schools. The parochial school 
 was the successor, in a way, of the catechetical 
 
 "The determination of just what powers shall be assumed 
 by the state, is solely one of expediency, and as such lies within 
 the field of politics, or the art of government, and not within 
 the domain of political theory." Willoughby: An Exam- 
 ination of the Nature of the State, p. 338. 
 
The Functions of the State 193 
 
 school of the early church. In it, reading and 
 writing did not usually form a part of the course 
 of study. 1 
 
 In the latter part of the Middle Ages, the 
 commercial developments and needs, the influence 
 of the Renaissance, and the rise of a feeling of 
 greater independence from the church, led to 
 the establishment of secular schools, especially 
 among the knights and in the cities. Many of 
 these, too, were under the control of the clergy. 
 Except among the higher classes, female education 
 was sadly neglected. Professor Painter, in review- 
 ing Germany's educational facilities up to the be- 
 ginning of the sixteenth century, tersely expresses 
 the 'common people's need of educational oppor- 
 tunity in these words: "A notable and lamentable 
 fact in the educational arrangements of the 
 Middle Ages was the neglect of the common 
 people. No general effort was made to reach 
 and elevate them by education. The ecclesiastical 
 schools were designed chiefly for candidates for 
 the priesthood; the parochial schools fitted the 
 young for church membership; the burgher schools 
 were intended for the commercial and artisan 
 classes of the cities; knightly education gave a 
 training for chivalry. Thus the labouring classes 
 were left to toil on in ignorance and want; they 
 
 1 Painter: Luther on Education, p. 75 et seq. 
 13 
 
194 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 remained in a dependent and servile condition, 
 their lives unillumined by intellectual pleasures. 
 If here and there, as claimed by Roman Cath- 
 olic writers, popular schools were established, 
 they were too few in number and too weak in 
 influence to deserve more than passing mention. 
 Popular education was the outgrowth of the 
 Reformation." 1 
 
 There were renowned universities largely at- 
 tended. The first German university was founded 
 by the Emperor Charles IV at Prague in 1348, 
 in order that his ''faithful subjects who continually 
 hungered for the fruits of science might find 
 satisfaction at home and no longer be compelled 
 to girdle the earth in the search for knowledge, 
 to hunt out strange peoples and to beg in foreign 
 lands." 2 No less than fifteen others had been 
 established prior to the time with which we are 
 now concerned. 
 
 Two great names associated with the humanistic 
 movement shine out in the first half of the six- 
 teenth century. Reuchlin gave an impetus to the 
 study of Greek and Hebrew ; and Erasmus, besides 
 developing a sense of culture, prepared the way 
 for philological and historical investigation. "The 
 new culture conquered along the whole line, and 
 
 1 Painter: Luther on Education, pp. 86, 87. 
 
 2 Russell: German Higher Schools, p. 14. 
 
The Functions of the State 195 
 
 by 1520 had forced its way into all the larger 
 universities. " 1 " The mediaeval church considered 
 the whole wide field of secular activities as es- 
 sentially evil. Nature, with all her riches and 
 wonders, was opposed to God. The arts, if not 
 subservient to the church, were inspired by the 
 devil; human intellect, when not in slavish sub- 
 mission to the dogma, was dangerous." 2 
 
 As a liberator of the human mind, Luther was 
 a staunch advocate of JDorjular education. He 
 urged that every child iJiould be given an ele- 
 mentary education, and that apt scholars should 
 be given advanced instruction. He based his 
 argument on training men and women not alone 
 for the service of the church, but for the service 
 of the state as well, that the government might 
 have trained, capable, and efficient servants at 
 command. He took a hand personally in the 
 establishment of town and village schools. The 
 curriculum of the existing schools should be 
 altered and corrected, and there should be com- 
 pulsory education for all the youth. Every 
 village, every town, every country district, should 
 have its public school, and it should be established 
 and directed by the civil authorities. He urged 
 
 1 Paulsen: The German Universities; their Character and 
 Historical Development, p. 40. 
 
 3 Nuelsen: Luther the Leader, p. 210. 
 
196 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 a practical education that would fit the pupils for 
 life's duties, rather than a mere study of the 
 schoolmen and the dead theories and philosophies 
 of the past. Public libraries, manual training, 
 instruction in music, illustrated teaching for the 
 primary grades, and the cementing of the various 
 schools from the beginners' to the university 
 into one great system are included in Luther's 
 plans for the training of the younger generations. 
 In his Appeal to the German Nobility, 1 he urges 
 the reformation of the Tjerman universities, in 
 which he alleges a free life was led, but little of 
 the Holy Scriptures and Christian faith was 
 taught and the blind heathen master Aristotle 
 reigned more than Christ. He recommends fewer 
 books, but that these should be the best. It is not 
 many books that makes learned, but it is a good 
 thing read often, however short it may be, that 
 makes learned in the Scriptures and pious withal. 
 He urges Biblical instruction in all the schools 
 and careful oversight of the books used. He 
 earnestly wishes that each town might have 
 also a girls' school. 
 
 1 An den christlichen Adel deutscher Nation von des christ- 
 lichen Standes Besserung (1520). Weimar ed., 6 Band, 381 
 et seq. The importance of education is one of the leading 
 topics in this stirring appeal. Fisher: The Reformation, p. 
 86. 
 
The Functions of the State 197 
 
 In a tract written a few years later, 1 he calls 
 attention to the deterioration of the German 
 schools, and says the universities are becoming 
 weak and the monasteries are declining. He 
 states various reasons why public schools should 
 be established everywhere. The civil authorities 
 of the towns must attend to this matter, because 
 parents neglect this duty from various causes. 
 Some would not do it if they could. The great 
 majority of parents are unqualified for it. Fur- 
 thermore, parents have no time for it. Very 
 few parents could afford the expense of private 
 instruction. 
 
 Therefore, he says, it will be the duty of the 
 mayors and council to exercise the greatest care 
 over the young. For since the happiness, honour, 
 and life of the city are committed to their hands, 
 they would be held recreant before God and the 
 world, if they did not, day and night, with all 
 their power, seek its welfare and improvement. 
 Now the welfare of a city does not consist alone 
 in great treasures, firm walls, beautiful houses, 
 and munitions of war; indeed, where all these 
 are found, and reckless fools come into power, 
 the city sustains the greater injury. But the 
 
 * An die Ratherren alter Stddte deutsches Lands, dass sie 
 christliche Schulen aufrichten und halten sollen (1524). Weimar 
 ed., 15 Band, 9 et seq. 
 
198 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 highest welfare, safety and power of a city consist 
 in able, learned, wise, upright, cultivated citizens 
 who can secure, preserve, and utilise every treasure 
 and advantage. He urges a general knowledge 
 of God's word, and declares that we will not pre- 
 serve the Gospel without the languages; for the 
 languages are the scabbard in which the word of 
 God is sheathed. They are the casket in which 
 this jewel is enshrined; the cask in which this wine 
 is kept; the chamber in which this food is stored; 
 and, to borrow a figure from the Gospel itself, 
 they are the baskets in which this bread, and fish, 
 and fragments are preserved. He then goes on 
 to state: 
 
 So much for the utility and necessity of the lan- 
 guages, and of Christian schools for our spiritual 
 interests and the salvation of the soul. Let us now 
 consider the body and inquire : Though there were no 
 soul, nor heaven, nor hell, but only the civil govern- 
 ment, would not this require good schools and learned 
 men more than do our spiritual interests. ... It is 
 not necessary to say here that civil government is a 
 divine institution. The question is, how are we to 
 get able and skilful rulers. . . . 
 
 Even if there were no soul and men did not need 
 schools and the languages for the sake of Christianity 
 and the Scriptures, still, for the establishment of the 
 best schools everywhere, both for boys and girls, 
 
The Functions of the State 199 
 
 this consideration is of itself sufficient, namely, that 
 society for the maintenance of civil order and the 
 proper regulation of the household, needs accom- 
 plished and well-trained men and women. Now, 
 such men are to come from boys, and such women 
 from girls. Hence it is necessary that boys and 
 girls be properly taught and brought up. . . . 
 
 As for myself, if I had children 1 and were able, I 
 would have them learn not only the languages and 
 history, but also singing, instrumental music, and 
 the whole course of mathematics. There is an urgent 
 necessity [he maintained], not only for the sake of the 
 young, but also for the maintenance of Christianity 
 and of civil government, that this matter be imme- 
 diately and earnestly taken in hand. 
 
 Several years later, in a letter to the Elector 
 John, 2 Luther wrote: 
 
 Where there are towns and villages which have the 
 ability, your Electoral Grace has the power to com- 
 pel them to maintain schools, pulpits, and parishes. 
 If they will not do it from a consideration for their 
 salvation, then your Electoral Grace, as highest guard- 
 ian of the youth and of all others needing supervision, 
 is to compel them to do so, just as they are compelled 
 to render contributions and services toward bridges, 
 paths, and roads, or other matters pertaining to the 
 public interest. Those who enjoy the privileges of a 
 
 1 This tract was written the year before Luther married. 
 
 2 Written in 1526. Painter: Luther on Education, p. 136 
 et seq. 
 
200 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 country are to contribute towards everything that 
 the common interests of the country require. Now 
 there is nothing more necessary than to educate men 
 who are to succeed us and govern. 
 
 In a sermon on this subject, preached and 
 published in I530, 1 he maintains that the civil 
 authorities are under obligation to compel the 
 people to send their children to school, especially 
 such as are promising; "for rulers are certainly 
 bound to maintain the spiritual and secular offices 
 and callings, so that there may always be preach- 
 ers, jurists, pastors, scribes, physicians, school- 
 masters, and the like; for this cannot be dispensed 
 with. If the government can compel such citizens 
 as are fit for military service to bear spear and 
 rifle, to mount ramparts and perform other 
 military duty in time of war, how much more 
 has it a right to compel the people to send their 
 children to school." 
 
 Luther earnestly appealed for the instruction of 
 every child in the fundamental principles of the 
 Christian religion, as well as in the common 
 branches of secular instruction. Prior to his day 
 there had been an education of certain classes. He 
 appealed for the education of the masses. Every 
 state is constantly dealing in its laws and adminis- 
 
 1 Predigt, dass man die Kinder zur Schule halten soil (July, 
 1530). Walch ed., x., 416 et seq. 
 
The Functions of the State 201 
 
 tration, with moral questions. Man cannot be 
 entirely dissociated from morals, because all his 
 relations with other men involve moral principles. 
 
 Luther declared he referred the inquiry if a 
 man had a right to resist the emperor to the jurists, 
 because it was not his province as a theologian 
 to decide such a question. It is the duty of the 
 theologian, he said, to teach the Gospel and faith 
 in Christ. He should also exhort every one in 
 general to perform his duty faithfully and indus- 
 triously. The theologian teaches general prin- 
 ciples concerning worldly business, e.g., "Thou 
 shalt not steal" ; but the jurists define what consti- 
 tutes theft. "And so in this matter concerning 
 the emperor I, as a theologian, teach that men 
 should obey the prescribed laws; but what the 
 law is and what kind of a law it is, I do not know 
 nor do I want to know ; for that does not belong 
 to my office, and it is not my province." 1 
 
 We need to-day, as the world has ever needed, 
 with the purely intellectual and scientific training, 
 a deep-seated religious and moral training that 
 will develop men of faith as well as of fortune, 
 men of character and of honour, as well as men 
 of secular learning. The state owes it to its own 
 maintenance and stability to cultivate morals 
 
 1 Luther s Antwort von der Gegenwehr (without date). Walch 
 ed., x., 558, 559. 
 
202 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 and manhood in its youth of to-day, who will 
 be its strength to-morrow. It is of little use for 
 the state to punish crime that has been committed, 
 if it neglect or refuse to teach and train its youth 
 as to what is right and what is wrong in the 
 relations between man and man. Every child 
 in the country needs to be taught, by and under 
 the authority of the state, that it is wrong to kill, 
 to steal, to lie. These are moral questions, as 
 are hundreds of other particular acts that are 
 made punishable, under certain conditions, by the 
 laws of the various civilised countries. The state 
 takes cognisance of them and punishes them; 
 and it is purest folly to maintain that the state 
 should not teach these matters in its public schools. 
 The state owes it to its citizens as individuals, and 
 it owes it to its own existence and interests. A 
 great historian has expressed the importance of 
 this duty of the state in these words: 
 
 As indeed there is nothing of real importance in 
 the moral and intellectual business of human life, 
 the source of which does not lie in a profound and 
 more or less conscious relation of man and his con- 
 cerns to God and divine things, it is impossible to 
 conceive a nation worthy of the name, or entitled to 
 be called, in any sense, great, whose political existence 
 is not constantly elevated and guided by religious 
 ideas. To cultivate, purify, and exalt these to give 
 
The Functions of the State 203 
 
 them an expression intelligible to all and profitable 
 to all, to embody them in outward forms and public 
 acts, is its necessary as well as its noblest task. 1 
 
 A writer of our own day urges such instruction 
 because it is for the best interests of the people. 
 He says: 
 
 We unhesitatingly advocate the doctrine that 
 religious instruction, as well as secular, should be 
 given in the schools of the state. But solely as a 
 means to an end not as an end in itself. . . . 
 The state, therefore, that is true to its mission the 
 highest well-being of all the people will use all 
 the means in its power to have its members receive 
 the most competent instruction available on their 
 relation to God as on their relation to one another. 
 . . . No government is justified in ignoring the 
 religious convictions of its subjects. 2 
 
 " Luther's influence on the cause of popular 
 
 1 Ranke: History of the Reformation in Germany, i., i. The 
 president of one of our prominent American colleges has 
 recently given utterance to the same thought in other 
 words: "Religion is essential to the candidate for good 
 citizenship, and the aim of the college is to train citizens 
 for citizenship. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all 
 thy mind and heart and soul and strength, and thy neighbour 
 as thyself, and without love of this kind, intellectual endow- 
 ment, the trained mind, and the most comprehensive know- 
 ledge, are nothing or worse than nothing. " Henry A. Gar- 
 field, Inaugural Address as President of Williams College, 1908. 
 
 2 Hoffman: The Sphere of the State, pp. 46, 47. 
 
204 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 education was immediate and profound." 1 A 
 problem such as is the one of education can be 
 handled only by the state, 2 if it is to reach all its 
 citizens alike. If morality is a factor in good 
 citizenship, and it is, then it is the right and the 
 duty of the state to teach morals, as well as 
 secular studies in its public schools. Luther, 
 in spite of all attempts at denial, is the founder 
 of the modern public school and compulsory 
 universal education. 3 
 
 1 Scherer: Four Princes, or the Growth of a Kingdom, p. 243. 
 
 2 Kelly: Evolution and Effort, p. 279. To the mind of 
 Wilhelm von Humboldt, national education seems to lie 
 "wholly beyond the limits within which political agency 
 should properly be confined." Sphere and Duties of Govern- 
 ment, p. 71. 
 
 But the more modern opinion attaches to education the 
 greatest importance, and in a large part of Christendom this 
 opinion is carried out in a system of primary instruction, 
 and special schools, and in what is called the university. 
 Woolsey: Political Science, or the State, i., 227. 
 
 3 Nuelsen: Luther the Leader, p. 212. "It is to Luther 
 that Germany owes its splendid educational system in its 
 roots and in its conception. For he was the first to plead 
 for a universal education for an education of the whole 
 people, without regard to class or special life-work. " Lind- 
 say: Luther and the German Reformation, p. 238. 
 
 Luther's pamphlets on education, according to the histo- 
 rian Ranke, "have done as much for the development of secu- 
 lar instruction as his Address to the German Nobility has done 
 for the secular state in general. " 
 
 "In education, as in religion, Luther showed himself 
 
The Functions of the State 205 
 
 FINANCE AND TRADE 
 
 Thomas Aquinas maintained that the state has 
 an economic as well as a moral end; and Luther 
 recognises a number of duties the state owes its 
 citizens in respect to financial and commercial 
 affairs. Wealth itself, honestly acquired and 
 honourably employed, is a great good; but the 
 state should prohibit its improper use. Jrle 
 declared : 
 
 Riches are not bad in themselves, nor is poverty 
 anything good in itself. Everything depends upon 
 the man who uses it. God does not require of us to 
 be without money, as some fools among the philo- 
 sophers and some crazy saints among the Christians 
 have taught. He permits some to become rich, but 
 he does not want them to set their hearts and their 
 love on their money. . . . The fatal mistake is made 
 When people consider themselves the owners, while 
 they are fout stewards. . . . You may earn as much 
 as you can in an honest way and in the fear of God, 
 not in order to gratify your avarice, but in order 
 to use it for others. 1 
 
 Extortion, gambling, and usury, according to 
 Luther, should be prohibited. Monopolies in 
 
 great, a seer in advance of his age, the founder of a new and 
 higher culture." He deserves "to be recognised as the 
 greatest, not only of religious, but of educational reformers. " 
 Painter: Luther on Education, pp. 146, 168. 
 1 Nuelsen: Luther the Leader, p. 237. 
 
206 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 restraint of trade corporate and individual alike 
 must be restrained. Domestic industries should 
 be cultivated and encouraged. The state may 
 fix and regulate prices. 
 
 A writer of our own day asserts that the regula- 
 tion of corporations is one side of the modern 
 regulation of the industrial system, and is a 
 function added to the antique list of governmental 
 tasks; 1 but Luther's Appeal to the German Nobility 
 of 1520 calls for such regulation. He maintained 
 that it is the duty of the state to check and control 
 combinations operating injuriously to the people. 
 If it is the province of government, as we are 
 told it is, to prevent as well as to correct evils in 
 society, then whatever is a menace to the rights 
 of others, being a practical expression of covet- 
 ousness, is to be dealt with effectually, even 
 though as yet it has not actually invaded the 
 rights of others, and the state can thus legislate 
 with reference to monopolies and combinations 
 and such things even before they begin practically 
 to control the market and injure others by their 
 methods of doing business. 
 
 In his Appeal to the German Nobility, 2 Luther 
 
 Wilson: The State, p. 626. 
 
 2 An den christlichen Adel deutscher Nation von des christ- 
 lichen Standes Besserung (1520). Weimar ed., 6 Band, 381 et 
 seq. Wace and Buchheim: Luther's Primary Works, p. 161 et 
 seq. 
 
rm 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 The Functions of the State 207 
 
 declared that without doubt the greatest mis- 
 fortune of the Germans is buying on usury. 1 But 
 for this many a man would have to leave unbought 
 his silk, velvet, cloth of gold, spices, and other 
 luxuries. The system, he says, has not been in 
 force for more than one hundred years, and has 
 already brought poverty, misery, and destruction 
 on almost all princes, foundations, cities, nobles, 
 and heirs. If it continue for another hundred 
 years Germany will be left without a farthing, and 
 we shall be reduced to eating one another. The 
 Devil, he declares, invented this system, and the 
 Pope has done an injury to the whole world by 
 sanctioning it. Luther therefore urges that each 
 man consider the destruction of himself and his 
 family, which is no longer merely at the door, but 
 has entered the house. And let the emperors, 
 princes, lords, and corporations see to the con- 
 demnation and prohibition of this kind of trade, 
 
 1 Receiving interest for the use of money was regarded as a 
 crime by nearly all the civilised world up to the middle of 
 the sixteenth century. This view was due mainly to an 
 unauthorised interpretation of a passage in the Mosaic law on 
 the subject. Aristotle was likewise quoted as against the 
 principle. But while money does not produce money, yet 
 it may be exchanged for wheat, corn, or other things that re- 
 produce themselves and increase wealth. The first legis- 
 lation enacted allowing the collection of interest for the use 
 of money and fixing a maximum rate (10%) was that of 
 England in 1546. Hoffman: The Sphere of the State, p. 149. 
 
208 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 without considering the opposition of the Pope 
 and all his justice and injustice, nor whether 
 livings or endowments depend upon it. Better 
 a single fief in a city based on a freehold estate 
 or honest interest than a hundred based on usury. 
 A single endowment on usury is worse and more 
 grievous than twenty based on freehold estate. 
 "Doubtless," he continues further, "we should 
 also find some bridle for the Fuggers and similar 
 companies. Is it possible that in a single man's 
 lifetime such great wealth should be collected 
 together, if all were done rightly and according to 
 God's will? I am not skilled in accounts, but I 
 do not understand how it is possible for one 
 hundred guilders to gain twenty in a year, or how 
 one guilder can gain another, and that not out 
 of the soil, or by cattle, seeing that possessions 
 depend not on the wit of men, but on the blessing 
 of God. I commend this to those that are skilled 
 in worldly affairs. I, as a theologian, blame 
 nothing but the evil appearance, of which St. 
 Paul says: 'Abstain from all appearance of evil.' 1 
 All I know is that it were much more godly to 
 encourage agriculture and lessen commerce; and 
 that they do the best who, according to the 
 Scriptures, till the ground to get their living, as 
 we are all commanded in Adam: 'Cursed is the 
 
 1 i Thessalonians v., 22. 
 
The Functions of the State 209 
 
 ground for thy sake. . . . Thorns also and thistles 
 shall it bring forth to thee. ... In the sweat 
 of thy face shalt thou eat bread.' 1 There is still 
 much ground that is not ploughed or tilled." 
 
 "I do not see," he says again in the same docu- 
 ment, ''many good manners that have ever come 
 into the land through commerce, and therefore 
 God let the people of Israel dwell far from the 
 sea and not carry on much trade." 
 
 The discoveries and conquests of new worlds 
 gave a marked impetus to commerce in the early 
 part of the sixteenth century. A more luxurious 
 mode of living was practised. Companies were 
 formed which bought up the necessaries of life 
 and raised the prices. The importance of agricul- 
 ture was yielding to commerce the opportunity 
 for greater wealth and larger returns. Luther's 
 pamphlet on Trade and Usury has been called by 
 Professor Schmoller "the most interesting treatise 
 on social and economic questions written during 
 the whole period of the Reformation." 2 Interest 
 should be collected, in Luther's view, only where 
 the debtor has won more than a fair return for 
 his trouble. The lender should assume the risk 
 and bear the loss of his creditor's reverses. 
 Luther denounces extortionate prices for the 
 
 1 Genesis in., 17-19. 
 
 a Quoted by Nuelsen: Luther the Leader, p. 236. 
 
 14 
 
210 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 necessaries of life, charged solely to make money. 
 Merchants are entitled, he holds, to a fair com- 
 pensation for their venture and their work, but 
 they have no moral right to charge extortionate 
 prices merely to acquire wealth. A court might 
 be instituted with authority to regulate and fix 
 prices, an arrangement that would be fair to 
 producer and consumer alike. 
 
 Luther criticised the foreign commerce of his 
 day because it carried so much of Germany's gold 
 out of the country, and cultivated a spirit of 
 extravagance and luxury. He advocated the en- 
 couragement of domestic industries and domes- 
 tic products. "Germany can produce everything 
 that we need," he declared: "why send money 
 to foreign nations for the purpose of purchasing 
 goods which are not necessary at all? God has 
 cursed us Germans, so that we throw our money, 
 our silver, and our gold into the hands of 
 foreign nations, to make them rich, and remain 
 beggars ourselves. England would have less gold 
 if we would not buy clothes of her. The King of 
 Portugal would have less money if we left him his 
 spices. Just figure up how much money is sent 
 to foreign countries without any just cause, and 
 you will be surprised that there is a penny left 
 in our German lands." 1 
 
 1 Nuelsen: Luther the Leader \ p. 236. 
 
The Functions of the State 211 
 
 As the penalty for extortion, whether in the 
 sale of goods or property, or for the loan of money, 
 Luther proposed confiscation of property and 
 even banishment. U 
 
 As to whether gamblers are thieves and whether 
 the stakes won should be given back, it is clear, 
 says Luther, 1 that those who gamble sin through 
 covetousness and avarice, at least those who 
 gamble for the sake of the stake and therefore 
 in God's sight are thieves and covet the things 
 of others. For no one gambles with another 
 because he desires to give that which is his own 
 to the other, for he could do that without gam- 
 bling, nor does he do so that he may thereby lose 
 his own. Neither does he do so in the other's 
 behalf, as if it were his own. Therefore gambling 
 is always against love and is base covetousness, 
 for the gambler seeks something for himself at 
 another's loss, or at least seeks that which is the 
 other's not as his own. But both players play 
 their stakes with knowledge and consent, so that 
 the loser loses knowingly and wilfully. The best 
 punishment would be, if it could be brought about, 
 that both should lose, or at least that the state treas- 
 ury should secure the winnings of both because 
 
 i Die zehn Gebote dem Volk zu Wittenberg gepredigt (1516- 
 1517). Das siebente Gebot: DM sollst nicht stehlen. Walch 
 ed., iii., 1312 et seq. 
 
212 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 both, by their gambling, violate the command 
 of the prince and the spiritual law of the church. 
 
 Luther condemned, as did his age in general, 
 the investment made in the spirit of avarice, to 
 increase worldly possessions and indulge in an 
 idle life. In the law of Moses, Luther sets forth in 
 the sermon just cited, labour and sorrow are laid 
 upon all men: "In the sweat of thy face shalt 
 thou eat bread" 1 ; and Job declares: ''Man is born 
 unto trouble [labour], as the sparks fly upward.*' 2 
 There are cases, Luther concedes, in which interest 
 may be properly taken on loans, such as in the 
 cases of (i) the aged, children, and the sick, for 
 they have trouble enough; (2) those who are 
 engaged in vocations from which they receive no 
 return, such as the clerical orders, priests, and 
 prelates, who are engaged in studies and with the 
 word of God, and those, too, who serve the com- 
 munity and the needs of others, as princes, coun- 
 sellors, and city and town authorities. Otherwise, 
 if God gave to each person in accordance with 
 his work, what would the idlers receive who 
 misuse their wealth only for gain, gain only for 
 idleness, idleness only for a luxurious life, and 
 luxurious life only for sin? The cultivation of 
 avarice and covetousness is the danger to which 
 Luther here directs attention. 
 
 1 Genesis iii., 19. 2 Job v., 7. 
 
The Functions of the State 213 
 
 In a sermon on the subject of Trade and Com- 
 merce* Luther goes into a lengthy argument as 
 to the Christian du^y of men to treat others justly 
 and fairly, citing tnte golden rule as the highest 
 standard of business? conduct. No fairer or 
 briefer guide can be given for all business affairs 
 than that every man in dealing with others should 
 set before himself the command: Whatsoever you 
 would that another should do to you, likewise do 
 to him; and: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as 
 thyself. Viewing the principle of usury as un- 
 christian, ungodly, and unnatural, Luther severely 
 condemns those who demand and receive \ extor- 
 tionate rates of interest for loans. He declares, 
 however, that it is not his province to say where 
 four, or five, or six per cent, should be charged. 
 He leaves that to the judgment of the law to 
 determine where there are good grounds for the 
 higher rate. The authorities should see that 
 
 1 Von Betrug und Uebervortheilung im Handel und Wandel, 
 insonderheit vom Zins und Wucher: Grosser Sermon vom 
 Wucher (1519-1520). Weimar ed., 6 Band, 33 et seq. Also 
 see, for Luther's further discussion of these subjects of 
 Wucher, Zinskauf, etc., Bedenken an den Kanzler Gregor 
 Bruck vom Zinskauf (Oct. 18, 1523), Walch ed., x., 912 et 
 seq. ; Herzog Johann Friedrichs zu Sachsen Schreiben an D. M. 
 Luther (1524), and Bedenken D. Martin Luther s (1524), an 
 answer to the preceding letter of inquiry. Walch ed., x., 
 352 et seq. 
 
214 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 excessive and oppressive rates are not taken. 
 Referring to some of the commercial thieves of 
 his day, he calls them, not human beings, but 
 wolves and wild beasts, who do not believe in 
 a God. The emperor, kings, princes, and lords 
 should watch these matters, and rescue and save 
 their lands and peoples from the usurer's gullet. 
 The Imperial Diet should treat this as one of the 
 most important and pressing subjects calling for 
 its consideration. 
 
 In a treatise on the subject of Trade and Usury, 
 published a few years later, 1 Luther condemns 
 the importation from Calcutta, East India, and 
 elsewhere, of expensive silks, gold- work, and spices, 
 that take from the people and out of the country 
 its gold, yet ministering to no need, but only to 
 adornment. "God has condemned us Germans 
 to throw away our gold and silver in foreign lands 
 and make all the world rich, but to remain beggars 
 ourselves.'* 
 
 Discussing in this same paper the evils of trade 
 of his day, he says "so far as they affect the 
 revenue, we leave them to the consideration of the 
 princes and lords, that they may do their duty 
 in the matter." Merchants have a common rule 
 that is their motto and the foundation of all 
 
 Von Kaufshandlung und Wucher (1524). Weimar ed., 
 15 Band, 279 et seq. 
 
The Functions of the State 215 
 
 finance: "I may dispose of my goods at as high 
 a price as I can." They look upon that as a 
 right. But it should not be "I may dispose of 
 my goods at as high a price as I can or will," 
 but "I may dispose of my goods at as high a 
 price as I should, or as is right and fair." The 
 best and surest way of regulating this matter, 
 Luther suggests, would be for the civil authorities 
 to appoint and entrust fit and capable persons 
 to inspect all goods and their cost, and fix their 
 value. In view of the fact that the Germans 
 are so occupied with other things, drinking and 
 dancing, as not to tolerate such a regulation and 
 institution, and it is not therefore to be expected, 
 the next best counsel is that the value of goods 
 be determined by the price given and taken in the 
 public market or by the practice of the country. 
 The amount of profit or gain to which a man is 
 entitled in the case of trade and work cannot be 
 calculated better than by determining the time 
 and the amount of the labour expended, and, as 
 compared with a common day labourer, how great 
 the labour and the risk involved; for difficult and 
 important work and a large amount of time are 
 entitled to greater and more reward. 
 
 Luther condemns the practice among merchants 
 and others in his day of going surety. Buying 
 on credit cultivates the spirit of avarice. Some 
 
2i6 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 merchants sell on time rather than for cash so as 
 to make a greater profit. Some sell their goods 
 at a higher rate than the current market price, and 
 run up the prices of goods for no other reason than 
 that they know there is no further supply of the 
 same in the country and people must have them. 
 All such are public robbers, thieves, and usurers. 
 
 Then there are those who buy up the entire 
 supply of a certain article or ware in a country 
 or a city, that they may have its control absolutely 
 within their own power, and then are able to set, 
 increase, and quote prices as high as they wish 
 or can. The imperial and temporal laws prohibit 
 it and term it monopoly. It should not be per- 
 mitted; and princes and lords, if they wish to do 
 their duty, should punish and stop it. For such 
 tradesmen act as if all God's creatures and things 
 were created for and given to them alone and 
 they may do with them as they please. Such 
 monopolists are not worthy to be called men, or 
 to live among people. The civil authorities would 
 do right here if they would confiscate all the 
 property of such monopolists and banish them 
 from the country. 
 
 After discussing various other methods of 
 tradesmen, middlemen, and speculators, who seek 
 the greatest possible profit from sales, made in 
 fact or on paper, Luther declares that such finan- 
 
The Functions of the State 217 
 
 ciers are called cut- throats, but are looked upon 
 as shrewd people. He denounces agreements 
 made between different merchants to regulate or 
 control prices with a view to greater profit; the 
 practice of selling at high prices and buying back 
 again from the same parties at much lower prices 
 under misrepresentation; increasing the weight of 
 certain commodities by storing them in damp 
 buildings; selling in dark rooms, where the pur- 
 chaser can be readily deceived; placing the best 
 at top and bottom, and the worst inside; so that 
 trade deception has no limit, and no merchant dare 
 trust another farther than he can see and examine. 
 It is the duty of the princes to punish and prohibit 
 unfair and unjust methods of trade. 
 
 Luther sees in the commercial companies and 
 associations of his day monopolistic combinations 
 that drive out of business the smaller merchants 
 and tradesmen as pike destroy the smaller fish 
 in the water control the market, and charge 
 extortionate prices. Kings and princes should 
 investigate these matters, he argues, and regulate 
 them in accordance with strict justice. But 
 while they have those thieves hung who steal a 
 gulden, or half a gulden, they trade and do 
 business with those who rob from the whole 
 world and steal more than all others. With 
 such extortionate and unjust practices before 
 
218 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 his mind, Luther declared no one therefore dare 
 inquire if he may be with good conscience in 
 such combinations or associations. There is no 
 other advice than keep out. If the associations 
 remain, justice and honesty must perish. If 
 justice and honesty are to abide, the associations 
 must perish. 1 
 
 Towards the close of his life, Luther addressed 
 an open letter to the parish clergy exhorting them 
 to preach against usury. 2 After referring to the 
 increasing extent and evils of it, he says, among 
 other things : * * Concerning lending and borrowing, 
 where a person loans money and demands or 
 receives therefor more or better, that is usury, 
 condemned in all justice. Therefore all those 
 who take five, six, or more on the hundred, whether 
 gold or grain, or other commodities, are usurers. 
 It is stolen goods." 
 
 But he makes an important qualification. He 
 asserts it is fair and according to reason and 
 natural law that the borrower return the principal 
 with any damage or loss (Sckaden) that may have 
 been incurred by the lender in making the loan. 
 
 1 " Sollen die Gesellschaften bleiben, so muss Recht und Red- 
 lichkeit untergehen. Soil Recht und Redlichkeit bleiben, so 
 mils sen die Gesellschaften untergehen. " 
 
 2 An die Pfarrherren, wider den Wucher zu predigen (1540). 
 Walch ed., x., 860 et seq. 
 
The Functions of the State 219 
 
 This is so clear and plain that, though all law 
 and law books were lost, reason, however weak 
 it might be, would dictate it. The works on 
 jurisprudence term this damage " Inter esse," in 
 Latin, and such a loan is certainly not usurious, 
 but a praiseworthy and honourable service and 
 good work. The determination of what is fairly 
 due the lender whether money or property is 
 the function of the jurists; or, best of all, it may 
 be settled by means of competent arbitrators, 
 expert referees, or by mutual friends. No law 
 can be enacted so pointed and definite as to 
 include all cases or circumstances. But this is 
 a legal question for the jurists. 
 
 Luther then refers to large profits made in 
 markets and at fairs, such as thirty and forty 
 per cent. The man who has a million florins 
 would receive, at such a rate, an annual income 
 of 400,000 florins, the income of a king, and 
 with it would incur no risk, either in body or estate, 
 and would not labour, but sit back of the stove 
 and roast apples. A thief could thus remain at 
 home, and swallow the whole world in ten years. 
 
 Inasmuch as the temporal authorities are inert 
 and lazy in this matter, or in part too weak, to 
 restrain this distress, let the clergy teach and warn 
 the people, Luther advises, to look upon the 
 usurers as incarnate devils, and upon Turks, 
 
220 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 Tartars, and heathen as angels as compared with 
 usurers. The school teachers should in like man- 
 ner train the youth. The princes and lords will 
 have to suffer for bearing the sword in vain and 
 permitting such murderers, robbers, usurers, and 
 skinflints to have free play in their territories. 
 
 MARRIAGE AND MORALITY 
 
 Prostitution 
 
 It is the province of the state forcibly to abate 
 social immoralities. Under whatever guise, though 
 that of a religious creed or teaching, gross im- 
 morality cannot be and must not be tolerated 
 by the state. Writing in an age, as compared 
 with ours, of relative coarseness, obscenity, im- 
 modesty, and immorality, 1 Luther held that the 
 civil government should regulate, indeed encour- 
 age, marriage, and that it should prohibit pros- 
 titution. In his Appeal to the German Nobility, he 
 argues : 
 
 A most interesting study of this subject will be found in 
 chapters vi and vii of Vol. VIII, entitled Women of the 
 Teutonic Nations, by Dr. Hermann Schoenfeld, 1907, in the 
 series Women in all Ages and in all Countries. At the end 
 of the fifteenth and the beginning of the sixteenth century, 
 prostitution had reached alarming proportions in Germany. 
 Shameless immorality prevailed in varying degrees among 
 all classes. 
 
The Functions of the State 221 
 
 Is it not a terrible thing that we Christians should 
 maintain public brothels, though we all vow chastity in 
 our baptism? I well know all that can be said on 
 this matter; that it is not peculiar to one nation, that 
 it would be difficult to demolish it, and that it is 
 better thus than that virgins, or married women, or 
 honourable women should be dishonoured. But 
 should not the spiritual and temporal powers combine 
 to find some means of meeting these difficulties 
 without any such heathen practice ? If the people of 
 Israel existed without this scandal, why should not 
 a Christian nation be able to do so? How do so 
 many towns and villages manage to exist without 
 these houses? Why should not great cities be able 
 to do so? ... It is the duty of those in authority 
 to seek the good of their subjects. But if those in 
 authority considered how young people might be 
 brought together in marriage, the prospect of mar- 
 riage would help every man and protect him from 
 temptations. 
 
 In Luther we find a striking departure from 
 the attitude and teaching of the church prior to 
 and in his day. By the ecclesiastical authorities 
 it was 'held that the church alone properly had 
 jurisdiction over the question of marriage, and 
 the canonical laws included civil as well as spirit- 
 ual affairs. Luther repudiated these canonical 
 laws on the subject of marriage, and separated 
 its civil from its ecclesiastical aspect. He main- 
 
222 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 tained that marriage, as the basis of all family 
 rights, lies entirely within the province of the 
 state and must be regulated of necessity by the 
 civil government. " Marriage and the married 
 state," he declared, "are civil matters, in the 
 management of which we priests and ministers 
 of the church must not intermeddle. But when 
 we are required, either before the church, or in 
 the church, to bless the pair, to pray over them, 
 or even to marry them, then it is our bounden 
 duty so to do." 1 
 
 THE PROBLEM OF PAUPERISM 
 
 In the beginning of the sixteenth century 
 Germany was overrun with mendicant monks, 
 pilgrims, wandering students, and hordes of 
 aimless beggars, vagrants, and shiftless criminals. 
 Luther realised, as does the modern age, that 
 this is a subject that can be handled only by the 
 state. 2 His statement of the problem and his 
 method for its solution are so interesting as to 
 merit attention. In his Appeal to the German 
 Nobility he asserts that it is one of the most 
 urgent necessities to abolish all begging in Christen- 
 dom. No one should go about begging among 
 
 1 Traubuchlein. See Geffcken: Church and State, i.. 303. 
 Also see Tischreden, Walch ed., xxii., 861, sec. 29; 1159, sec. 
 70 ; and 1174, sec. 97. 
 
 2 Kelly: Evolution and Effort, p. 279. 
 
The Functions of the State 223 
 
 Christians. "It would not be hard to do this 
 if we attempted it with good heart and courage." 
 Each town should support its own poor and 
 should not allow strange beggars to come in, 
 whatever they may call themselves, pilgrims, 
 or mendicant monks. Every town should feed 
 its own poor; and, if it were too small, the people 
 in the neighbouring villages should be called upon 
 to contribute. As it is, they have to support 
 many knaves and vagabonds under the name 
 of beggars. ' ' If they did what I propose, they 
 would at least know who were really poor." 
 
 There should also be an overseer or guardian, 
 who should know all the poor, and should inform 
 the town council, or the priest, of their require- 
 ments; or some other similar provision might be 
 made. He goes on to say: 
 
 There is no occupation, in my opinion, in which 
 there is so much knavery and cheating as among 
 beggars, which could easily be done away with. This 
 general unrestricted begging is, furthermore, injuri- 
 ous to the common people. I estimate that, of the 
 five or six orders of mendicant monks, each one visits 
 every place more than six or seven times in the year. 
 Then there are the common beggars, emissaries and 
 pilgrims. In this way I calculate every city has a 
 blackmail levied on it about sixty times a year, not 
 counting rates and taxes paid to the civil government 
 
224 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 and the useless robberies of the Roman See; so that 
 it is to my mind one of the greatest of God's miracles, 
 how we manage to live and support ourselves. . . . 
 
 If a man will be poor, he should not be rich. If 
 he will be rich, let him put his hand to the plough, and 
 get wealth himself out of the earth. It is enough to 
 provide decently for the poor, that they may not die 
 of cold and hunger. It is not right that one should 
 work that another may be idle, and live ill that 
 another may live well, as is now the perverse abuse, 
 for St. Paul says: "If any would not work, neither 
 should he eat. " J God has not ordained that any 
 one should live of the goods of others, except priests 
 and ministers alone, as St. Paul says in I Corinthians 
 ix., 14, for their spiritual work's sake, as Christ says 
 to the Apostles: "The labourer is worthy of his 
 hire." 
 
 In an earlier tract, 2 Luther declares there 
 should not be any begging or suffering from want. 
 Yet there is so much begging that it has become 
 an honour. And not only do laymen beg, but it is 
 carried on by the spiritual priesthood as a precious 
 or meritorious thing. The spiritual and temporal 
 authorities would not act unjustly if they were 
 to prohibit all begging. To do away with such 
 
 2 Thessalonians iii., 10. 
 
 2 Von Betrug und Uebervortheilung im Handel und Wandel, 
 insonderheit vom Zins und Wucher. Grosser Sermon vom 
 Wucher (1519-1520). Weimar ed., 6 Band, 33 et seq. 
 
The Functions of the State 225 
 
 burdens and impositions, the pope, bishops, kings, 
 princes and lords should take such action that, 
 either through their own orders or in a general 
 council, it might be enacted and ordered that each 
 city and village provide for its own poor, that 
 begging cease, or at least that each place does 
 not impose its poor upon other places, as is now 
 the undesirable practice. 
 
 Luther was sufficiently interested in an old 
 book entitled the Liber Vagatorum that he pub- 
 lished it with a preface of his own in which he 
 says: 
 
 This little book about the knavery of beggars was 
 first printed by one who calls himself " Expertus in 
 Truffis," i.e., a fellow right well knowing in roguery, 
 which the book very well proves. . . . Princes, lords, 
 counsellors of state, and everybody should be prudent 
 and cautious in dealing with beggars, and should learn 
 that, whereas people will not give and help honest 
 paupers and needy neighbours as ordained by God, 
 they give by persuasion of the Devil, and contrary 
 to God's judgment, ten times as much to vagabonds 
 and desperate rogues. . . . For this reason every 
 village and town should know their own poor, as 
 written down in the register, and assist them. But 
 as to outlandish and strange beggars, they ought not 
 to be borne with unless they have proper letters and 
 certificates; for all the great rogueries mentioned in 
 15 
 
226 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 this book are done by them. If each town would only 
 keep an eye on its own paupers, such knaveries would 
 soon cease. I have myself of late years been cheated 
 and befooled by such tramps and liars more than I 
 like to confess. 1 
 
 Luther blamed the teachings of the church of 
 his day as to the merit of making pilgrimages for 
 developing and cultivating the vagabond life. 
 A man's first duty is to provide a support for his 
 wife and family, and then assist the needy and 
 worthy poor of his own community. He proposes, 
 if not the abolition, at least a strict supervision 
 of pilgrimages to Rome. It often happens, he 
 declares, 2 that a man goes on a pilgrimage to 
 Rome, spends fifty or a hundred guilders, more 
 or less, which no one has commanded him, while 
 his wife and children or those dearest to him are 
 left at home in want and misery. . . . These 
 pilgrimages are the reason for there being so 
 many beggars, who commit numberless villainies, 
 learn to beg without need, and get accustomed 
 to it. Hence arises the vagabond life, with attend- 
 
 * Lindsay: Luther and the German Reformation, pp. 201, 
 202. 
 
 2 An den christlichen Adel deutscher Nation von des christ- 
 lichen Standes Besserung (1520). Weimar ed., 6 Band, 381 et 
 seq. 
 
The Functions of the State 227 
 
 ant and consequent miseries. The priest or the 
 temporal authorities should supervise this matter 
 and tell the man proposing to make a pilgrimage 
 to spend his money and the labour the pilgrimage 
 would cost on a thousand-fold better work, namely, 
 on his family and his poor neighbours. If a man 
 can afford it, and wishes to travel out of a desire 
 to see other cities and countries, of course he may 
 be allowed to do so. 
 
 In another tract, 1 Luther declared that it is 
 the province of agriculture to nourish, and of the 
 military to defend. The emperor or the prince 
 should see that the latter are armed and ready 
 for service, and that those engaged in the former 
 duty intelligently improve the maintenance; but 
 they should not endure useless people, who do not 
 help to defend or support, but only consume, and 
 lounge and idle away their time; but should expel 
 them from the country, or put them to work, just 
 as the bees drive out from the hive the drones 
 that do not work, yet consume the honey of the 
 other bees. 2 
 
 1 Ob Kriegsleute auch in einem seligen Stande sein konnen 
 (1526). Weimar ed., 19 Band, 616 et seq. 
 
 2 Interesting studies of the problem of pauperism will be 
 found in the following works : Hoffman : Sphere of the State. 
 Chap, x is devoted to "The state in its relation to the poor. " 
 Woolsey: Political Science. "The state's relations to the 
 poor" is discussed in i., 232 et seq. 
 
228 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 SUMPTUARY LAWS 
 
 Luther was an advocate of the simple life. He 
 denounces the extravagance of his day in eating 
 and drinking, in dress and display, alike. It was 
 an age of marked contrast between rich and poor, 
 between some living in highest luxury and others 
 in deepest want. There were brilliant lights and 
 dark shadows. He strongly recommends and 
 urges, 1 therefore, the enactment of a general law 
 and consent of the German nation against pro- 
 fusion and extravagance in dress, which is the 
 cause of so much poverty among the nobles and 
 the people. "Surely God has given to us," he 
 says, "as to other nations, enough wool, fur, flax, 
 and whatever else is required for the decent cloth- 
 ing of every class, and it cannot be necessary to 
 spend such enormous sums for silk, velvet, cloth 
 of gold, and all other kinds of outlandish stuff. 
 . . . Every man wishes to be every other man's 
 equal, and this causes and increases pride and 
 envy among us, as we deserve, all which would 
 cease, with many other misfortunes, if our self- 
 will would but let us be gratefully content with 
 what God has given us." 
 
 1 An den christlichen Adel deutscher Nation von des christ- 
 lichen Standes Besserung (1520). Weimar ed., 6 Band, 381 
 et seq. Wace and Buchheim: Luther's Primary Works, p. 
 161 et seq. 
 
The Functions of the State 229 
 
 Regarding other forms of extravagance he 
 speaks as follows: 
 
 It is similarly necessary to diminish the use of 
 spices, which is one of the ships in which our gold is 
 sent away from Germany. God's mercy has given 
 us more food, and that both precious and good, than 
 is to be found in other countries. I shall probably 
 be accused of making foolish and impossible sugges- 
 tions, as if I wished to destroy the great business of 
 commerce. But I am only doing my part. If the 
 community does not mend matters, every man should 
 do it for himself. 
 
 Then there is the excess in eating and drinking, 
 for which we Germans have an ill reputation in foreign 
 countries, as our special vice, and which has become 
 so common, and gained so much the upper hand, that 
 sermons avail nothing. The loss of money caused 
 by it is not the worst ; but in its train come murder, 
 adultery, theft, blasphemy, and all vices. The 
 temporal power should do something to prevent it. 
 Otherwise it will come to pass, as Christ foretold, that 
 the last day shall come as a thief in the night, and 
 shall find them eating and drinking, marrying and 
 giving in marriage, planting and building, buying 
 and selling, 1 just as things go on now, and that so 
 strongly that I apprehend lest the day of judgment 
 be at hand, even now when We least expect it. 
 
 For a similar reason, Luther urged the aboli- 
 
 1 Matthew xxiv., 38. Luke xvii., 26. 
 
230 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 tion of all saints* days, excepting only Sunday. 
 Aside from the spiritual evils which he alleged 
 were involved in their keeping, he declared that 
 these saints' days inflict bodily injury on the 
 common man in two ways. He loses a day's 
 work, and he spends more than usual, besides 
 weakening his body and making himself unfit for 
 labour, as we see every day; and yet no one tries 
 to improve it. If anything is contrary to God's 
 will and harmful to men in body and soul, it is 
 the duty of every community, every council, and 
 every governmental authority to prevent and 
 abolish it. 
 
 A famous German, writing more than a century 
 ago, declared "that the state must wholly refrain 
 from every attempt to operate directly or indi- 
 rectly on the morals and character of the nation, 
 otherwise than as such a policy may become inevi- 
 table as a natural consequence of its other abso- 
 lutely necessary measures; and that everything 
 calculated to promote such a design, and particu- 
 larly all special supervision of education, religion, 
 sumptuary laws, etc., lies wholly outside the 
 limits of its legitimate activity." 1 
 
 The modern state does not seriously attempt to 
 make its subjects virtuous or frugal by law; 2 but 
 
 1 Humboldt: Sphere and Duties of Government, p. 113. 
 
 2 Wilson: The State, p. 627. 
 
The Functions of the State 231 
 
 it has a large field of legislation looking to the 
 health, safety, and lives of the people, in the way 
 of pure food and drug laws, the inspection of cattle, 
 dressed meats and other food stuffs, prohibition 
 of the sale of poisons except on physician's pre- 
 scription, and the various laws regulating, con- 
 trolling, or prohibiting the sale of intoxicating 
 liquor. 
 
CHAPTER IX 
 
 LIMITS OF THE STATE 
 
 THE ancient state asserted and enforced the 
 right to interfere in every relation of life. 
 No field of activity was recognised by the state 
 as pertaining absolutely and solely to the individ- 
 ual. The citizen was born and was expected to 
 live for the state, and it was for the state to 
 determine his life. 
 
 In the Middle Ages, among the Teutons them- 
 selves, with all their innate love of liberty, 1 there 
 
 i There are two possible views as to the relation between the 
 state and the individual. "According to the one the entire 
 sphere of right of the individual is the product of state 
 concession and permission. According to the other the 
 state not only engenders rights of the individual, but it also 
 leaves the individual that measure of liberty which it does 
 not itself require in the interest of the whole. This liberty, 
 however, it does not create but only recognises. 
 
 "The first conception is based upon the idea of the state's 
 omnipotence as it was most sharply denned in the absolutist 
 doctrines of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. . . . 
 
 ' ' The second theory on the other hand is that of the Teutonic 
 232 
 
Limits of the State 233 
 
 was no freedom of thought, of speech, or of reli- 
 gious belief. To lose standing in the Roman 
 Church was to lose standing in the state. Excom- 
 munication from the former was but the fore- 
 runner of the ban of the latter. The man who 
 differed in his views from the teachings of that 
 Church was without the pale and the protection 
 of the state. 1 His civil rights, such as he had, 
 ceased to exist. His faith, his thought, his speech, 
 his writings, his very conscience, were all alike 
 to be determined by ecclesiastical authority. 
 Contrary to that authority, he must not harbour 
 a moment's speculation, or speak a single word. 
 This applied not only to religious creed and wor- 
 ship, but to all political, scientific, economic, and 
 social questions. 2 The state was declared by the 
 Church of Rome to be its servant, obligated to do 
 
 conception of right. . . . However much the boundaries 
 of that recognised liberty have changed in the course of time, 
 the consciousness that such bouidaries existed was never 
 extinguished in the Teutonic peoples even at the time of 
 the absolute state. " 
 
 Jellinek: The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of 
 Citizens, pp. 95-97. 
 
 1 The Council of Constance, for example, in the case of 
 John Huss, declared that an obstinate heretic was not en- 
 titled to any privileges, and that no law, human or divine, 
 required men to observe faith with such a one. Hallam: 
 Middle Ages, i., 157. 
 
 2 As in the cases of_Copernicus and Galileo. 
 
234 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 its bidding. Status in the state was dependent 
 upon status in the church. The state was but 
 the armed force of the church to enforce its decrees 
 and execute its will. As against this view that the 
 church was supreme over the state, Luther de- 
 clared the equality of cleric and layman, and 
 demanded the emancipation of the state from 
 the control of the church. He conceded the 
 jurisdiction and authority of the church in 
 matters of doctrine, morals, and internal ad- 
 ministration; that it is properly concerned with 
 the spiritual, the unseen, the dissemination of 
 religious truth, the cultivation of the heart. 
 Its adherents, in all secular matters, are not in- 
 dependent of but subject to civil authority. 
 AH legislative, executive, and judicial author- 
 ity in temporal affairs belongs exclusively to the 
 jurisdiction of the state. When necessary, Luther 
 asserted that the state may go so far as to protect 
 and defend the church, as the different members 
 of the human body assist one another when 
 occasion demands; but "as the church is not to 
 interfere in civil matters, so the state has as 
 little right to intermeddle in matters purely 
 ecclesiastical, except where life and property are 
 at stake." 1 
 
 Luther's court of last resort was the word of 
 
 Geffcken: Church and State, i., 304. 
 
Limits of the State 235 
 
 God, on which he took a determined stand; not as 
 interpreted by a hierarchy, or by a spiritual 
 potentate, or by any other association or individual 
 for he failed in his appeal to the Roman Pope 
 and again in his appeal to a general council of 
 the Roman Church but as read and interpreted 
 by the individual himself. Where that word 
 speaks, he refused to yield to any other authority, 
 secular or ecclesiastical. Unless convinced by 
 the word of God or by cogent reason, he declared 
 at the Diet of Worms, that he was wrong, he 
 could not and would not retract what he had 
 written. The individual conscience, he main- 
 tained, cannot be bound. Each man must deter- 
 mine the meaning of the Word for himself. And 
 the inevitable result of this principle is individual 
 liberty. He held that the state's jurisdiction 
 covers all persons, ecclesiastical and lay, within 
 its borders; that the church has no jurisdiction 
 over temporal affairs; that coercion is the pre- 
 rogative of civil government exclusively; that 
 obedience to legitimate civil government is the 
 duty of the individual; but that submission, how- 
 ever, is not a duty, and self-defence is a right of 
 the individual in case of tyranny or a command to 
 do that which is explicitly prohibited by the word 
 of God ; that religious and civil liberty is the right 
 of the individual; and that civil government is to 
 
236 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 be viewed as a trust to be executed in the best 
 interests of the governed. The relation of man 
 with man, the external life as it affects others is 
 under the control of the state. Even religious 
 belief or creed may become subversive to the 
 peace and safety of the community, and force 
 may be properly used to suppress the disorder. 
 The proceedings of the fanatics had early led 
 Luther to a recognition of this principle. The 
 peace and order of the state must be maintained 
 against disorder, personal violence, destruction 
 of property, public immorality and treason, though 
 they come in the guise of religion. The state 
 must grant liberty of conscience, freedom of speech 
 and the privilege of the press. These are inalien- 
 able rights belonging alike to every individual, 
 subject only to the limitation that they are not 
 permitted to encroach upon the rights of others. 
 The natural, the almost inevitable, consequence 
 of the declaration and recognition of these prin- 
 ciples was eventually the establishment of modern, 
 constitutional law. It was not in consequence of 
 his teaching, but merely in spite of it, that for 
 the next two centuries monarchical government 
 became more autocratic, as feudalism was being 
 transformed into civil government. It has been 
 shown in a previous chapter that the subject is 
 not bound to render obedience to a government 
 
Limits of the State 237 
 
 that has not been legally established and is not 
 constitutionally conducted. All through Luther's 
 writings, and in his own acts as well, is to be read 
 the right of the individual to think and believe 
 in matters political, religious and otherwise, as he 
 sees proper. His is the right to read the Bible 
 and any other book he may desire. He has the 
 right to confer and counsel with others, to express 
 and declare his views pro and con, in speech or 
 print, so long as he abides by and remains within 
 the laws of the land. Luther firmly believed in 
 the liberty of the individual as to conscience, 
 speech and press. The search for truth must be 
 untrammelled. 
 
 In the Appeal to the German Nobility, 1 Luther 
 declares that no one in Christendom has any 
 authority to do harm, or to forbid others to prevent 
 harm being done. He declares that faith must 
 be kept between a state and its citizens, between 
 a ruler and his subjects, between man and man. 
 He maintains that it is not right to put a man to 
 death because of religious belief or unbelief. In 
 this Appeal he says : 
 
 No one can deny that it is breaking God's command- 
 ments to violate faith and a safe-conduct, even 
 
 An den christlichen Adel deutscher Nation von des christ- 
 lichen Standes Besserung (1520). Weimar ed. f 6 Band, 381 
 et seq. 
 
238 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 though it be promised to the Devil himself, much more 
 then in the case of a heretic. . . . Even though he 
 [John Huss] were a heretic, however bad he may have 
 been, yet he was burned unjustly and in violation of 
 God's commandments, and we must not force the 
 Bohemians to approve this, if we wish ever to be at 
 one with them. Plain truth must unite us, not 
 obstinacy. It is no use to say, as they said at the 
 time, that a safe-conduct need not be kept if promised 
 to a heretic ; that is as much as to say, one may break 
 God's commandments in order to keep God's com- 
 mandments. They were infatuated and blinded by 
 the Devil, that they could not see what they said or 
 did. God has commanded us to observe a safe-con- 
 duct; and this we must do though the world should 
 perish; much more then where it is only a question 
 of a heretic being set free. We should overcome 
 heretics with books, not with fire, as the old Fathers 
 did. If there were any skill in overcoming heretics 
 with fire, the executioner would be the most learned 
 doctor in the world; and there would be no need of 
 study, but he that could get another into his power 
 could burn him. 
 
 In the same year that he wrote his Appeal to 
 the German Nobility, Luther published a tract 
 entitled Concerning Christian Liberty, 1 in which 
 he discusses two propositions concerning Christian 
 
 1 Von der Freiheit eines Christenmenschen (1520). Weimar 
 ed., 7 Band, 12 et seq. 
 
Limits of the State 239 
 
 liberty and servitude which, at first glance, may 
 seem contradictory, but which, in his explanation, 
 supplement one another. He says: (i) a Christian 
 man is the most free lord of all, and subject to 
 none; (2) a Christian man is the most dutiful 
 servant of all, and subject to every one. In this 
 work, Luther shows a breadth of view recognising 
 the liberty of the individual and charity towards 
 others in non-essential matters, both as to theory 
 and practice; he urges obedience to authority, 
 save when it contradicts the teaching of the word 
 of God; for the Christian freeman, he says, will 
 speak thus : " I will fast, I will pray, I will do this 
 or that which is commanded me by men, not as 
 having any need of these things for justification 
 or salvation, but that I may thus comply with 
 the will of the pope, of the bishop, of such a com- 
 munity, or such a magistrate, or of my neighbour 
 as an example to him; for this cause I will do and 
 suffer all things, just as Christ did and suffered 
 much more for me, though He needed not at all 
 to do so on His own account, and made Himself 
 for my sake under the law, when He was not 
 under the law; and although tyrants may do me 
 violence or wrong in requiring obedience to these 
 things, yet it will not hurt me to do them, so 
 long as they are not done against God." 
 
 A few years later, in his tract on Secular Author- 
 
240 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 ity^ he considers the length of the arm of civil 
 authority and how far its hand properly reaches: 
 
 Unbearable loss follows where it is given too much 
 room, and it is likewise not without loss where it is 
 too restricted. Here it punishes too little; there it 
 punishes too much. Although it is more desirable 
 that it offend on the side of punishing too little than 
 that it punish too severely ; because it is always better 
 to permit a knave to live than to put a good man 
 to death, inasmuch as the world still has and must 
 have knaves but has few good men. 
 
 In the first place^it is to be noted that the two 
 classes of the human race, one of whom is in the king- 
 dom of God under Christ and the other in the kingdom 
 of the world under civil authority, have two kinds 
 of laws, for every kingdom must have its laws and 
 its rights, and no kingdom or regime can stand 
 without law, as daily experience shows. Temporal 
 government has laws that do not reach farther than 
 over person and property and what is external on 
 the earth; for God will not permit any one to rule 
 over the soul of man but HimselfJ Therefore where 
 temporal power presumes to give laws to the soul, 
 it touches God's rule and misleads and destroys the 
 souls. We wish to make that so clear that men may 
 comprehend it, in order that our knights, the princes 
 and bishops, may see what fools they are when seeking 
 
 t Von weltlicher Oberkeit, wie weit man ihr Gehorsam 
 schuldig sei (1523). Weimar ed, // Band, 229 et seq. 
 
Limits of the State 241 
 
 to force people by their laws and commandments to 
 believe thus or so. When a man lays a human law 
 or commandment upon the soul, that it must believe 
 this or that, as the man prescribes, it is assuredly not 
 God's word. . . . Therefore it is a thoroughly foolish 
 thing to command a man to believe the church, the 
 Fathers, the councils, although there is nothing on it 
 from God's word. 
 
 Now tell me, how much sense does the head have 
 that lays down a command on a matter where it has 
 no authority? Who would not hold as of unsound 
 mind the person who would command the moon to 
 shine when he wishes? How fitting would it be if 
 the Leipsic authorities would lay down laws for us 
 at Wittenberg, or we at Wittenberg for the people 
 of Leipsic? Moreover, let men thereby understand 
 that every authority should and may concern itself 
 only where it can see, know, judge, sentence, trans- 
 form, and change; for what kind of a judge is he to 
 me who would blindly judge matters he neither hears 
 nor sees? Now tell me, how can a man see, know, 
 judge, sentence, and change the heart? For that is 
 reserved to God alone. A court should and must 
 be certain when it sentences and have everything 
 in clear light. But the soul's thoughts and impulses 
 can be known to no one but God. Therefore it is 
 futile and impossible to command or to compel a 
 man by force to believe thus or so. For that purpose 
 another grip is necessary. Force does not accomplish 
 it. For my ungracious lords, pope and bishops should 
 
242 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 be bishops and preach God's word; but they leave 
 that and have become temporal princes and rule 
 with laws that concern only person and property. 
 They have reversed the order of things. Instead 
 of ruling souls (internally) through God's word, they 
 rule (externally) castles, cities, lands, and people, and 
 kill souls with indescribable murder. The temporal 
 lords should, in like manner, rule (externally) land 
 and people ; but they leave that. They can do nothing 
 more than flay and shave the people, set one tax and 
 one rent on another ; there let loose a bear and here a 
 wolf; respect no right, or faith, or truth, and conduct 
 affairs so that robbers and knaves increase in number ; 
 and their temporal regime lies as far beneath as the 
 regime of the spiritual tyrants. Faith is a matter 
 concerning which each one is responsible for himself ; 
 for as little as another man can go to heaven or hell 
 for me, so little can he believe or not believe for me ; 
 and as little as he can open or close heaven or hell 
 for me, so little can he drive me to belief or unbelief. 
 We have the saying from St. Augustine: " No one can 
 or should be compelled to believe." The blind and 
 miserable people do not see what a vain and im- 
 possible thing they undertake ; for, however imperi- 
 ously they command and however hard they drive, 
 they cannot force people any farther than that they 
 follow with the mouth and the hand. They cannot 
 compel the heart, though they should break it. 
 For true is the maxim: Gedanken sind zollfrei. 
 When weak consciences are driven by force to lie, 
 
Limits of the State 243 
 
 deceive, and say otherwise than they believe in the 
 heart, they burden themselves also with heavy sin; 
 for all the lies and false witness given by such weak 
 consciences rest upon him who forces them. x 
 
 Christ Himself clearly recognised and concisely 
 stated this truth when He said: "Render therefore / 
 unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto / 
 God the things which are God's." 1 Now, when im- / 
 perial authority stretches itself over into God's king- 
 dom and authority and does not keep within its own 
 separate jurisdiction, this discrimination between the 
 two realms has not been made. For the soul is not 
 under the authority of the emperor. He can neither 
 teach nor guide it, neither kill it nor give it life, neither 
 bind nor loose, neither judge nor sentence, neither 
 hold nor let alone ; which necessarily would exist had 
 he authority to command and lay laws over it; but 
 over body, estate, and honour he has authority so to 
 do, for they are under his jurisdiction and power. 
 
 David long ago expressed it briefly: "The heaven, 
 even the heavens, are the Lord's : but the earth hath 
 he given to the children of men." 2 That is to say, 
 over what is on the earth and belongs to the temporal 
 earthly kingdom, man has power from God ; but what 
 belongs to heaven and to the eternal kingdom is under 
 the Lord of heaven alone. But finally, this is the 
 meaning of St. Peter: "We ought to obey God rather 
 than men." 3 He here clearly marks a limit to 
 
 i Matthew xxii., 21. 2 Psalms cxv., 16. 
 
 * Acts of the Apostles v., 29. 
 
244 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 temporal authority; for were men obliged to observe 
 everything that civil authority wished, the command 
 " We ought to obey God rather than men " would have 
 been given in vain. 
 
 If, now, your prince or temporal lord command you 
 to believe this or that, or to dispense with certain 
 books, say: "I am under obligations to obey you 
 with body and estate; command me within the com- 
 pass of your authority on earth and I will obey you. 
 But if you command me as to belief, and order me 
 to put away books, I will not obey, for then you be- 
 come a tyrant and overreach yourself, and command 
 where you have neither right nor power." If your 
 goods are taken and your disobedience is punished, 
 you are blessed and you may thank God that you are 
 worthy to suffer for God's word. When a prince 
 is in the wrong, his subjects are not under obligations 
 to follow him, for no one is obliged to do anything 
 against the right ; but we must obey God, who desires 
 to have the right, rather than men. 
 
 But thou sayest once more: "Yea, worldly power 
 cannot compel to belief. It is only external protec- 
 tion against the people being misled by false doctrine. 
 How else can heretics be kept at bay?" Answer: 
 That is the business of bishops, to whom the office is 
 entrusted, and not to princes. For heresy can never 
 be kept off by force; another grip is wanted for that. 
 This is another quarrel and conflict than that of 
 the sword. God's word must contend here. If that 
 avail nothing, temporal power will never settle the 
 
Limits of the State 245 
 
 matter, though it fill the world with blood. Heresy 
 pertains to the spiritual world. You cannot cut it/ 
 with iron, nor burn it with fire, nor drown it in water. / 
 You cannot drive the Devil out of the heart by de- 
 stroying, with sword or fire, the vessel in which he 
 lives. This is like fighting lightning with a blade of 
 straw. 
 
 In a letter written by Luther in early years, 
 concerning the treatment of godless scorners, 1 
 he expresses this opinion: 
 
 Even as no one can be compelled to accept the 
 Gospel, so no magistrate must suffer anyone to traduce 
 it. The magistrate must have him up and hear his 
 reasons for acting as he does. If he can give none, 
 then he must be bound over to silence so that the 
 seeds of dissension may not be sown. For whosoever 
 will speak against it must do so openly, the magistrate 
 being called upon to put down all private disputes 
 with all his authority. This is how we do in Witten- 
 berg, and counsel others to do the same. From this 
 you will see that the magistracy dare not tolerate 
 what you speak of in the community ; for it is nothing 
 short of a secret scandal. Therefore call them out 
 to the light of day, so that they may either justify 
 themselves or be vanquished. 
 
 Along with the decalogue and the catechism in- 
 culcate civil (burgerliche) and domestic virtues, and 
 
 i Letter to Thomas Fischer, a preacher in Malau, dated 
 August 26, 1519. See Currie: Letters of Martin Luther, p. 47. 
 
246 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 these ought most frequently to be the subject topics 
 of preaching, and the people be compelled to attend, 
 so that they may be instructed as to the duties of a 
 subject and social life, whether they approve of the 
 Gospel or not, to prevent them becoming a stone of 
 stumbling to others, by deliberately setting at nought 
 political laws. For if they live in a community, they 
 must learn the laws of the same and obey them, even 
 against their will. And they must do this, not only 
 on account of their possessions, but for the sake of 
 their family. 
 
 Luther wrote a letter on another occasion to 
 the Elector John, 1 asking him to silence one 
 Hans Mohr, who was spreading certain doctrines 
 in Coburg. In another letter, 2 he lays down the 
 principle that if unbelievers, after instruction, 
 persist in their views, they should be prohibited 
 from proclaiming them. 
 
 In 1528 he wrote in reference to the Anabaptists: 
 
 Yet it is not right, and I think it great pity that 
 such wretched people should be so miserably slain, 
 burned, cruelly put to death; every one should be al- 
 lowed to believe what he will. If he believe wrongly, 
 he will have punishment enough in the eternal fire 
 
 1 Letter dated January 9, 1528. Brief e, De Wette ed., iii., 
 256. 
 
 2 Letter to J. L. Metzsch, August 26, 1529. De Wette ed., 
 iii., 498. 
 
Limits of the State 247 
 
 of hell. Why should he be tortured in this life, too, 
 provided always that it be a case of mistaken belief 
 only, and that they are not also unruly and oppose 
 themselves to the temporal power? . . . These men 
 should be fought off and withstood with scripture and 
 God's word. Fire will do very little good. 1 
 
 Luther wrote to Link : 
 
 I am slow to adopt the judgment of blood, even 
 where it is abundantly deserved. I can in no way 
 admit that false teachers should be put to death. 
 It is enough that they should be banished. 2 
 
 He wrote to his friend Cresser: 
 
 If the courts wish to govern the churches in their 
 own interests, God will withdraw His benediction 
 from them, and things will become worse than before. 
 Satan still is Satan. Under the popes he made the 
 church meddle in politics; in our time he wishes to 
 make politics meddle with the church. 3 
 
 It is a grave error to say that Luther believed 
 in liberty of thought and speech only for himself 
 
 1 Brief an zwei Pfarrherren von der Wiedertaufe (1528). 
 Walch ed., xvii., 2644, 2645. 
 
 1 Letter dated July 14, 1528. Brief e, De Wette ed., iii., 
 347. Bluntschli: Geschichte der neueren Statswissenschaft, 
 allgemeines Statsrecht und Politik, p. 64. 
 
 3 Hoffman: The Sphere of the State, p. 233. 
 
248 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 and not for those who disagreed with him. 1 In 
 a letter to the Elector John, 2 he says: 
 
 As to the question whether, if his imperial majesty 
 forbid the evangelical preaching, you should submit, 
 my opinion is still the same. The emperor is our lord, 
 the town and all being his, so that as no one should 
 disobey you in your own town of Torgau, neither should 
 it be done in Augsburg. No doubt it would be well if 
 he were humbly asked not to forbid the preaching 
 without hearing it, but to send some one to hear 
 how they preach before condemning it. Certainly his 
 majesty should not forbid the pure preaching of the 
 word, as nothing seditious is being proclaimed. If 
 this do not avail, then might must stand for right. 
 We have done our best, and are blameless. 
 
 Luther always and consistently stood for obe- 
 dience to the lawfully constituted civil authorities, 
 unless there were a specific command to do 
 something explicitly contrary to the word of 
 God. And his attitude was the same whether it 
 concerned his friends or his foes. The constitution 
 
 "It must not be forgotten that to take a different side 
 from Luther in any cause was, ipso facto, to incur denuncia- 
 tion. " Mackinnon: A History of Modern Liberty, ii., 92. 
 
 2 Letter to Elector John the Steadfast, of Saxony, dated 
 May 15, 1530. See Currie: Letters of Martin Luther, p. 213. 
 As a matter of fact, the German Protestant princes did not 
 yield to the emperor in this matter. 
 
Limits of the State 249 
 
 of the state and the law of the land were the 
 controlling factors, humanly speaking. 
 
 After the Diet of Augsburg of 1530, when the 
 Protestants were given six months within which 
 to renounce their faith, under penalty of being 
 treated as heretics and outlaws, Luther declared 
 in a letter to a friend, speaking of impending war: 
 "If war must come, so let it come. We have 
 prayed and worked long enough. f>1 In a warning 
 to the German people against the recess of Augs- 
 burg of 1 53 1, 2 he emphasises his attitude of 
 opposition to resorting to violence to settle reli- 
 gious questions. He has urged peace heretofore, 
 but if the Papists will have war and bloodshed, 
 so let it come. Let the worst come. The respon- 
 sibility lies with them, not with him. It is not 
 rebellion to resist such a fate. It is both a right 
 and a duty, under such circumstances, to resist 
 force with force, if the struggle be begun by 
 others. The real rebel is the one who oppresses 
 others. If the emperor permit himself to be 
 used as a tool to these religious bloodhounds, he 
 simply forfeits his right to obedience, and no 
 God-fearing man ought to obey him. "In such 
 
 1 Letter to Justus Jonas, dated Sept. 20, 1530. Walch ed., 
 xvi., 1479-1481. 
 
 2 D.Martin Luther s Warnung an seine lieben Deutschen(in den 
 ersten Monaten des Jahrs 1531). Walch ed., xvi., 1616 et seq. 
 
250 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 a case no man ought to obey the emperor, but 
 should know that such obedience is absolutely 
 forbidden by God and that he who obeys is dis- 
 obedient to God, and endangers his soul and body 
 to all eternity. For the emperor acts in this case 
 not only against God and the divine law but 
 against his own imperial rights, oath, duty, seal, 
 and edicts/* The Saxon jurists appealed to 
 constitutional law, the fundamental law of the 
 empire, to prove that resistance against the 
 emperor might not be unlawful. The emperor 
 was not an absolute sovereign. His power was 
 limited by that of the princes and of the cities. 
 The Schmalkald League (1530-1531) was defen- 
 sive, not offensive. It was not directed against 
 the emperor or any one else by name. It was 
 for mutual defence against any aggression that 
 might be directed against them or any of them, 
 by whomsoever made. "It was a declaration to 
 the emperor and the majority that might is not 
 right in matters of belief, and that combination 
 and resistance to the oppression of conscience, 
 by even an emperor and a majority in the name 
 of the law, is a Christian duty." 1 
 
 Luther makes a distinction, 2 on the ground of a 
 
 1 Mackinnon: A History of Modern Liberty, ii., 118. 
 
 2 Letter to a citizen ofNurnberg, March 1 8, 1531. Walch ed., 
 x., 568 et seq. 
 
Limits of the State 251 
 
 decision of the jurists, between the Christian and 
 the citizen, the member of the church and the 
 subject of the state. As a citizen, he agrees with 
 the jurists that resistance is admissible. As a 
 theologian, however, without advising any Chris- 
 tian to resist, he leaves it to the individual 
 conscience to decide how to act. In one of his 
 sermons 1 he says: 
 
 But how is it when rulers would take the Gospel 
 from us or forbid preaching? Then shall you say: 
 " I shall not grant you the Gospel and the word of God ; 
 you have no authority in this matter, for your juris- 
 diction is temporal, over worldly affairs; but the 
 Gospel is a spiritual, heavenly good, and your author- 
 ity does not extend over the Gospel and the word 
 of God." We recognise, therefore, the emperor as 
 lord over temporal matters, and not over the word 
 of God. ... To the emperor and civil authority 
 there is due fear, custom, tax, tribute, and obedience. 
 The heart belongs to God, but the body and estate 
 are under civil authority, which rules over them in 
 God's place. 
 
 In another sermon on the same Gospel lesson, 
 Luther says further 2 : 
 
 1 From Kirchen-Postille: Am dreiund zwanzigsten Sonntage 
 nach Trinitatis, Matt, xxii., 15-22, "Gebet dem Kaiser, 
 was des Kaisers ist, und Gotte, was Gottes ist. " Walch ed., 
 xi., 1802 et seq. 
 
 2 Kirchen-Postille: "Gebet dem Kaiser was des Kaisers ist, 
 
252 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 In these words, too, the measure and limit is set 
 to rulers that they so govern as not to take from their 
 subjects what does not belong to them, but to consider 
 that they also give and do, as they are under obli- 
 gations, that is, govern land and people that they 
 may prosper and flourish. For to this end are they 
 set in civil authority, and not that they should there 
 sit as thieves and do according to their own lusts. 
 . . . The words of this text do not say, "Give to 
 the emperor what he wants and covets," but it 
 places a limit to how far he may reach. It says, 
 what belongs to the emperor, or that to which he 
 has a right; for what is termed his, that must be his 
 by right. 
 
 Therefore man must not so rule in the state, towns, 
 and homes as he himself desires, as a lord might go 
 about over his estate according to his own will, with 
 his servants and labourers; for it is declared thus: 
 I am under obligations to give you what is yours as 
 my lord, not what you yourself want to have. 
 
 So, too, if a mayor, official or other ruler oppress 
 and plague the people according to his own wanton- 
 ness; that is not seigniorial right, but as truly stolen 
 and taken from them as when another robs. 
 
 To Luther the right and the field of civil author- 
 ity, therefore, has its limitations. It must be 
 admitted that, in spite of the ruggedness of his 
 
 und Gotte was Gottes ist. " Zweite Predigt. Walch ed., 
 xi., 1816 et seq. 
 
Limits of the State 253 
 
 character, the brusqueness of his language, and 
 the vigour of his opposition to the foe, he was by 
 far the mildest and most tolerant of the great 
 reformers of his century. 1 
 
 It is an error to suppose that Luther materially 
 changed his views on the subject of the relation 
 of church and state 2 ; or that he conceded to the 
 state per se the right of regulating the ordinances 
 of the church, though the church might confer 
 ecclesiastical functions upon a civil ruler. Owing 
 to the necessities and circumstances of the case, 
 Luther looked upon the princes as provisional 
 bishops, or bishops by necessity (Nothbischofe). 
 He aimed personally to keep church and state 
 distinct and separate; but the developments and 
 the needs of the times brought the church under 
 
 1 Beard: The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, in 
 Hibbert Lectures (1883), p. 178. 
 
 2 An interesting study of this subject of the relation of 
 church and state will be found in the following works: 
 Geffcken: Church and State. (A discriminating discussion 
 of Luther's attitude in the matter is given in i., 289 et seq.) 
 Hoffman: The Sphere of the State, chap. xiii. Gierke: 
 Political Theories of the Middle Age. Humboldt: The Sphere 
 and Duties of Government, chap. vii. Bluntschli: The 
 Theory of the State, p. 39 et seq. Prall: The State and the 
 Church, chap. iv. Crapsey : Religion and Politics. Stanley: 
 The Connection of Church and State in Essays chiefly on Ques- 
 tions of Church and State, pp. 344-377. Curteisr The Three 
 Conflicting Theories of Church and State, in Contemporary 
 Review, February, 1878. 
 
254 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 the care of the princes, and there it has remained, 
 in Germany, for centuries. "State churchism 
 was nothing but a makeshift required by the 
 exigencies of the times. As a permanent institu- 
 tion it is not in harmony with Luther's funda- 
 mental doctrines." 1 
 
 It was but the natural, almost inevitable, result 
 that Luther's teaching as to religious liberty 
 should eventually lead to political liberty. 2 Mr. 
 Bryce, in reviewing this subject, says of the 
 Reformation : 
 
 It became a revolt against the principle of authority 
 in all its forms; it erected the standard of civil as 
 well as of religious liberty, since both of them are 
 needed, though needed in a different measure, for 
 the worthy development of the individual spirit. 
 . . . The empire had never been conspicuously the 
 antagonist of popular freedom, and was, even under 
 Charles the Fifth, far less formidable to the common- 
 alty than were the territorial princes of Germany. 
 But submission, and submission on the ground of 
 indefeasible transmitted right, upon the ground of 
 catholic traditions and the duty of the Christian 
 magistrate to suffer heresy and schism as little as 
 the parallel sins of treason and rebellion, had been 
 its constant claim and watchword. Since the days 
 
 1 Nuelsen: Luther the Leader, pp. 179, 180. 
 
 2 Hartranft's Biographical Sketch of Luther, in The Library 
 of the World's Best Literature, Ancient and Modern. 
 
Limits of the State 255 
 
 of Julius Caesar it had passed through many phases, 
 and in so far as it was a Germanic monarchy, it had 
 recognised the rights of the vassals and had admitted 
 the delegates of the cities to a place in the national 
 assembly. But these principles of the mediaeval 
 monarchy, half feudal, half drawn from Teutonic 
 antiquity, principles themselves now decaying, had 
 little to do with the religious conceptions and the 
 Roman traditions on which the theory of the empire 
 rested. In that theory there was no place for popular 
 rights. . . . And hence the indirect tendency of the 
 Reformation to narrow the province of government 
 and exalt the privileges of the subject was as plainly 
 adverse to what one may call the imperial idea as the 
 protestant claim of the right of private judgment was 
 to the pretensions of the papacy and the priesthood. 
 The remark must not be omitted in passing, how 
 much less than might have been expected the religious 
 movement did at first actually effect in the way of 
 promoting either political progress or freedom of 
 conscience. The habits of centuries were not to be 
 unlearnt in a few years, and it was natural that ideas 
 struggling into existence and activity should work 
 erringly and imperfectly for a time. 1 
 
 Speaking likewise of the Reformation, a Ger- 
 man historian says: 
 
 That by its influence on Germany, on the Nether- 
 lands, on England, and, for a considerable period, on 
 
 Bryce: Holy Roman Empire, pp. 380, 381. 
 
256 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 France, it became the origin of political freedom in 
 Europe, can be a matter of doubt only to those who 
 "having eyes, see not"; and this once admitted, it 
 will not be difficult to show that the same causes led 
 to its being the origin of political speculation also. 1 
 
 An author of distinction in this field of investi- 
 gation makes the following comment: 
 
 It remains an everlasting title to glory of the Re- 
 formation that political liberty which has nothing 
 necessarily in common with democracy first became 
 possible through its principles, in a manner very 
 different, indeed, to that of antiquity, when the civil 
 importance of a small minority rested upon the dark 
 background of the slavery of the masses. The 
 principles of liberty of conscience and of universal 
 priesthood, which make man inwardly free, lead also 
 involuntarily to outward liberty. A people who no 
 longer feel themselves in the position of an obedient 
 and submissive laity, at the service of a privileged 
 clergy, will refuse to continue any longer in a state of 
 passive obedience to the government, without any 
 rights of their own. 2 
 
 In successfully protesting against worldly com- 
 pulsion in matters of conscience, Luther was thus 
 the first in Europe effectively to raise the banner 
 of religious liberty. His teaching was a revelation 
 
 1 Heeren: Historical Treatises, p. 120. 
 
 2 Geffcken: Church and State, i., 309. 
 
Limits of the State 257 
 
 in the field of European politics, as well as reli- 
 gious doctrine. It spread like wild-fire throughout 
 the continent, and its influence is seen in the 
 political literature of those countries already in 
 the sixteenth century. 1 
 
 The fact that this movement "was a product 
 of the Germanic spirit is evinced plainly enough 
 by its having taken hold of the Germanic peoples 
 of northern Europe alone. These are also the 
 nations whose inhabitants possess the widest 
 degree of liberty to-day." 2 
 
 The Reformation emphasised the individual and 
 individual rights and powers that cannot be 
 properly or permanently controlled by the state. 
 Any attempt to do so will only weaken the state 
 as well as the individual. There is a limit to the 
 power of the despot as well as to that of the 
 democracy. "The cold hand of the state should 
 not press upon the inner kingdom of the soul." 3 
 
 According to the modern view, there are natural 
 and imperative limits to state action. Freedom 
 of opinion and of speech are two necessary liber- 
 ties of a people, and in consequence of the recog- 
 nition of this principle, the freedom of the press 
 
 1 Gumplowicz: Geschichte der Staatstheorien, pp. 155-157. 
 
 2 Scherger: The Evolution of Modern Liberty , p. 36. 
 
 3 Renan: Les Apotres. Quoted by Innes: Church and 
 State, p. 7. 
 
258 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 is sacred in all free countries. 1 " Religion and 
 science and art have their separate and well- 
 marked provinces, in the administration of which 
 they may wisely seek for the co-operation, though 
 they will always jealously avoid the dictation, of 
 the state/' 2 Thought and conscience are private; 
 opinion is optional. 3 Religion is not a condition of 
 legal status. 4 ' ' The state cannot make men think, 
 speak, or hold what religious beliefs it pleases. It 
 has no power to do this, and therefore it has no 
 right to attempt it; for whatever it attempts with- 
 out having also the power to effect it is a sign of 
 its weakness, impotence, or incapacity, and of 
 its ignorance of its proper function and work." 5 
 ''Faith cannot impose itself, and cannot be 
 adopted for the sake of anything, violence, de- 
 ception, or utility; and hence it is not faith, but 
 the delusion of faith." 6 
 
 No state can possibly usurp this inalienable right 
 of freedom of moral and religious belief which is 
 invested in the individual, however high or low 
 that individual may stand in the scale of civili- 
 sation. Freedom of thought, of speech, and of 
 
 Woolsey: Political Science, or the State, i., 272, 273. 
 
 2 Blackie: What does History Teach ? p. 99. 
 
 3 Wilson: The State, pp. 637, 638. 
 
 * Bluntschli: The Theory of the State, p. 58. 
 
 5 Duff: Spinoza's Political and Ethical Philosophy, p. 471. 
 
 Tolstoi: Church and State, p. n. 
 
Limits of the State 259 
 
 religious belief, belong to every individual alike; 
 and the state that seeks to regulate or compel in 
 these matters attempts the impossible and only 
 contributes to its own downfall. 1 
 
 But "while thought and belief are, and must 
 always remain, sui juris, or an inalienable function 
 of the individual, action never can thus be an 
 individual right." 2 There must be one common 
 and sovereign authority in the state to control 
 human action; but there is no such authority 
 over the mind. On this subject, Macaulay de- 
 clares : "The protestant doctrine touching the 
 right of private judgment that doctrine which 
 is the common foundation of the Anglican, the 
 Lutheran, and the Calvinistic churches that 
 doctrine by which every sect of dissenters vindi- 
 cates its separation we conceive not to be this, 
 that opposite opinions may both be true; nor 
 this, that truth and falsehood are both equally 
 good; nor yet this, that all speculative error is 
 
 1 In a letter to the Presbyterians of New Hampshire and 
 Massachusetts published in the Massachusetts Sentinel, 
 December 5, 1789 George Washington replied to their 
 complaint as to the omission of the name of God in the 
 Constitution of the United States, by asserting that it "be- 
 longed to the churches, and not to the state." Straus: 
 The Origin of Republican Form of Government in the United 
 States of America, p. 69. 
 
 2 Duff: Spinoza's Political and Ethical Philosophy, p. 487. 
 
260 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 necessarily innocent; but this, that there is on 
 the face of the earth no visible body to whose 
 decrees men are bound to submit their private 
 judgment on points of faith." 1 The government 
 that fails to recognise these rights of the individual 
 and secure them to him does not have a right to 
 exist. Humboldt declares: "Reason cannot desire 
 for man any other condition than that in which 
 each individual not only enjoys the most absolute 
 freedom of developing himself by his own energies, 
 in his perfect individuality, but in which external 
 nature even is left unfashioned by any human 
 agency, but only receives the impress given to it 
 by each individual of himself and his own free will, 
 according to the measure of his wants and in- 
 stincts, and restricted only by the limits of his 
 powers and his rights." 2 
 
 Referring, again, to the personal freedom that 
 the state should secure to its citizens, the same 
 writer lays down the following principle : 
 
 In order to provide for the security of its citizens, 
 the state must prohibit or restrict such actions, refer- 
 ring immediately to the agents alone, as imply the 
 infringement on others' rights in their consequences, 
 
 1 Macaulay: Critical and Miscellaneous Essays, iii., 296, 297. 
 
 2 Wilhelm von Humboldt: The Sphere and Duties of Govern- 
 ment, pp. 17, 1 8. 
 
Limits of the State 261 
 
 or encroach in these on their freedom or property 
 without or against their will; and further, it must 
 forbid or restrict these actions when the probability 
 of such consequences is fairly to be apprehended, 
 a probability in which it must necessarily consider 
 the extent of the injury feared, and on the other hand 
 the consequences of the restriction on freedom implied 
 in the law contemplated. Beyond this, every limita- 
 tion of personal freedom is to be condemned, as 
 wholly foreign to the sphere of the state's activity. 1 
 
 The problem of the present day is to combine 
 the rights and the interests of the individual and 
 of the state, so to develop the state to its fullest 
 perfection without annihilating individuality, and, 
 at the same time, to make the most of the individ- 
 ual without undermining the sovereignty of the 
 state. 2 
 
 1 Wilhelm von Humboldt: The Sphere and Duties of Govern- 
 ment, p. 127. 
 
 * M'Kechnie: The State and the Individual, p. 72. 
 
CHAPTER X 
 
 AN ESTIMATE OP LUTHER*S PLACE IN THE HISTORY 
 OF THE THEORY OF THE STATE 
 
 IT is difficult to follow, in almost any case, the 
 direct not less than the indirect influence of a 
 new truth or of a great principle ; but, once deeply 
 stirred by a great conception of truth, of oppor- 
 tunity, or of duty, a people is never again the 
 same. In speaking of the Reformation, Carlyle 
 invites attention to this thought. "Once risen 
 into this divine white heat of temper," he says, 
 "were it only for a season and not again, it is 
 henceforth considerable through all its remaining 
 history. Nations are benefited for ages by being 
 thrown once into divine white heat in this manner, 
 and no nation that has not had such divine parox- 
 ysms at any time is apt to come to much." 
 
 An idea, a concept, a truth, does not originate 
 with the mass, but with the individual. Every 
 invention, every discovery, every truth, every 
 principle, comes, in the first instance, not from 
 the many nor from the few, but from the one. 
 
 262 
 
His Theory of the State 263 
 
 'The moving force -ia, society r' -says Mr. Taylor, 1 
 "is personality. No movement, however great, 
 but had its source in a single mind; it may change 
 the map of a continent, decide the fate of empires 
 and races; it may divide the world like the Refor- 
 mation; but its beginning, if it could only be 
 traced to its fountain head, would be found in 
 the thought of a single person, a person in all 
 probability entirely ignorant of the power and 
 purpose of that germ idea. Such an idea spread- 
 ing to other and yet other minds, becoming mixed 
 with other ideas, undergoing strange transfor- 
 mations in the {troeess, but ever growing in 
 clearness and force as time passes on, develops at 
 last into that mighty thing, a public opinion." 
 
 In a given case it may be possible to locate the 
 fountain source. In the case of the great reformer 
 of the sixteenth century it is possible to trace his 
 words, his works, and his influence, not only on 
 his own race and age, but on many other peoples 
 from that day to this. "He became the mouth- 
 piece, the prophet of all those who were sighing 
 under the yoke of foreign tyranny and yearning 
 for national and social liberty." 2 
 
 "That the Reformation was able to establish 
 itself in the shape which it assumed," we are 
 
 1 Taylor: The Individual and the State, p. 72. 
 
 2 Nuelsen: Luther the Leader, p. 86. 
 
264 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 told by a great historian, 1 "was due to the one 
 fact that there existed at the crisis a single person 
 of commanding mind as the incarnation of the 
 purest wisdom which then existed in Germany, 
 in whose words the bravest, truest, and most 
 honest men saw their own thoughts represented; 
 and because they recognised this man as the wisest 
 among them, he was allowed to impress on the 
 Reformation his own individuality. The traces 
 of that one mind are to be seen to-day in the 
 mind of the modern world. Had there been no 
 Luther, the English, American, and German 
 peoples would be thinking differently, would be 
 acting differently, would be altogether different 
 men and women from what they are at this 
 moment." 
 
 Any brave man who fears nothing on the earth 
 or under it, who is willing to declare himself 
 faithful to his conscience and to the word of 
 God, in the presence of an imperial and ecclesi- 
 astical hostility that suggests the stake, and 
 who hurls defiance at Satan and all his hosts, 
 commands our attention and merits our con- 
 sideration. It is not the purpose or province 
 of this study to refer to Luther's faith, work, 
 and influence as a religious reformer, or in any 
 way to his ecclesiastical attitude or activities. 
 
 1 Froude: Luther, p. 4. 
 
His Theory of the State 265 
 
 It is the sole function of this work to direct atten- 
 tion to his views, his writings, and his influence 
 on matters pertaining to the theory of the state. 
 It is true that it was in the course of his religious 
 reform that he was led almost inevitably to 
 suggestions of political reform. The doctrine 
 of the Middle Ages was that the church was 
 supreme over the state; the clergy were held to 
 be morally superior to the laity. They were held 
 as exempt, even as to all civil affairs, from the 
 temporal authorities and the laws of the land. 
 By baptism a man entered the fold of the church 
 and the rights of citizenship. By excommuni- 
 cation he lost his standing in church and state. 
 The state, indeed, was viewed as an arm of the 
 church to carry out its will. It was the emperor's 
 duty to place under the ban the heretic and the 
 excommunicate. Failing to do so, he incurred 
 the penalty of the interdict on land and people. 
 The schismatic and the heretic had no rights before 
 the law. This principle was rarely denied till 
 the Reformation. Admitted by Roman Catholic 
 princes, and founded on the Code of Justinian, 
 it was the basis of the popes' claim of the right 
 to depose sovereigns. 1 
 
 Luther denied to the church any authority 
 
 1 See Figgis: Studies of Political Thought from Gerson to 
 Grotius, p. 17. 
 
266 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 over the state. 1 He declared that the ecclesias- 
 tical officer has no coercive authority. The state 
 alone possesses this power. The spheres of church 
 and state are absolutely separate and distinct. 2 
 Thus the ecclesiastical Reformation led to a po- 
 litical one. 3 The sphere of the state was extended 
 to include every one within its borders and to 
 include temporal affairs of every kind. "On 
 the whole, " says a recent writer, ". . . the 
 supremacy of the common law of the land upon 
 every one within its borders, including the clergy, 
 triumphed universally with the Reformation." 4 
 The Reformation, therefore, was not only a 
 
 1 After the abdication of Charles V, the Imperial Diet 
 declared it unnecessary for the emperor to be crowned by 
 the pope. Case: European Constitutional History, p. 112. 
 
 2 " By Luther's entire conception of the nature of the church 
 and ecclesiastical authority, moreover, every extension of 
 that authority, as divinely ordained, to the sphere of tem- 
 poral, political, or civil life was excluded." Koestlin: Luther, 
 i., 308. 
 
 3 ' ' Religious forces, and religious forces alone, have had 
 sufficient influence to ensure practical realisation for political 
 ideas. Reluctantly, and in spite of themselves, religious 
 societies were led by practical necessities to employ upon 
 their own behalf doctrines which are now the common her- 
 itage of the Western world. In fact, that world, as we live 
 in it and think it, was really forged in the clash of warring 
 sects and opinions, in the secular feuds between the clergy 
 and laity, Catholic and Protestant, Lutheran and Calvinist. " 
 Figgis: Studies of Political Thought from Gerson to Grotius, p. 6. 
 
 4 Ibid., p. 69. 
 
His Theory of the State 267 
 
 religious and an intellectual, but a political revolt, 
 as it was also a revolt of the individual against 
 class or caste. "This great revival was set in a 
 picturesque framework of human impulses, politi- 
 cal, intellectual, moral, social, and economic, such 
 as the world has seldom seen before or since." ! 
 It is a great mistake, a grievous error, to regard 
 the movement of which Luther was the source 
 and the centre as purely religious. "However 
 much Luther might seek to narrow the reform 
 movement within the limit of his own spiritual 
 experience, it was not possible to shake himself 
 free from these political, intellectual, social influ- 
 ences of the time, and he in turn contributed by 
 his reforming teaching and fervour to quicken these 
 influences. He was or became, willingly or un- 
 willingly, wittingly or unwittingly, the instrument, 
 not merely of a religious reformation but of a 
 many-sided revolution." 2 The practical appli- 
 cation of the theological, ecclesiastical, and ethical 
 elements of the Reformation involved questions 
 of most far-reaching political and social import. 3 
 Although these political consequences of the 
 Reformation did not manifest themselves all at 
 
 Lindsay: Luther and the German Reformation, p. i. 
 
 2 Mackinnon: A History of Modern Liberty, pp. 49, 53, 54. 
 
 3 Dunning: A History of Political Theories from Luther to 
 Montesquieu, p. 2. 
 
268 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 once, "the results of this movement upon the 
 enfranchisement of the individual could not but 
 show themselves sooner or later." 1 "The habits 
 of centuries were not to be unlearnt in a few years, 
 and it was natural that ideas struggling into 
 existence and activity should work erringly and 
 imperfectly for a time." 2 
 
 Luther demanded the right to think for himself. 
 The mind of man may not be, cannot be, formed 
 or changed by mere physical force or fiat of human 
 government, whether ecclesiastical or civil. Once 
 asserting and maintaining the freedom of the 
 individual conscience, it must inevitably include 
 the political as well as the religious field of thought. 
 
 Luther was thus the liberator of modern 
 thought. External force cannot control thought, 
 the mind, the conscience. Secular government 
 has no authority over matters of belief. 3 Human 
 government cannot claim the right to rule except 
 in that realm where it can see, know, recognise, 
 and judge. To assert that it has such right or 
 such power is as absurd as to declare that it has 
 authority to command the sun or moon to shine 
 or the earth to revolve. A new era began with 
 
 1 Scherger: The Evolution of Modern Liberty, p. 36. 
 
 2 Bryce: The Holy Roman Empire, p. 381. 
 
 3 Dunning: A History of Political Theories from Luther to 
 Montesquieu, p. 12. 
 
His Theory of the State 269 
 
 Martin Luther's firm stand so forcibly stated in 
 his great treatises of 1520, so vividly shown in 
 his burning of the papal bull of excommunication 
 in the presence of a large concourse of people, and 
 yet again so fearlessly and so publicly taken at 
 the Diet of Worms, in the presence of the highest 
 and most powerful ecclesiastical and imperial 
 authority of the age. This last scene, which has 
 been termed one of the finest, perhaps the very 
 finest, scene in human history is unquestionably 
 a landmark in the development of the modern 
 political world. In spite of excommunication 
 from the church, in spite of the ban of the empire, 
 the world had changed in so far that, though 
 protected by the Wartburg retreat for almost a 
 year, Luther was thereafter practically safe, with 
 freedom to come and go at will among a liberty- 
 loving people for the remaining quarter of a 
 century of his life. 1 The rights of the individual 
 conscience had been discovered, and the ban had 
 lost its sting. The old and the new met in the 
 presence and in the persons of Charles V., the 
 
 The historian Froude tells us that Luther did not attend 
 the Imperial Diet at Augsburg, in 1530, however, because, 
 being under the ban of the empire, he could not be permitted 
 to appear in the presence of the emperor. Froude: Luther, 
 p. 53. Within half a year after Luther's death, his elector, 
 John Frederick, was put under the ban of the empire, and 
 the imperial army was sent against him. 
 
270 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 emperor, and Martin Luther, the monk. The aim 
 and the effort of the young Emperor to turn time 
 and the world backward for centuries proved 
 futile; and Luther gave the Holy Roman Empire 
 its death-blow. 1 
 
 The Teuton has been known throughout his 
 history as a lover of liberty. 2 For the first con- 
 ception of the modern constitutional and popular 
 government, we are taken to that section of Europe 
 lying between the rivers Rhine and Elbe and to 
 the east of the Elbe. "The civilisation of the 
 present age and the peoples who enjoy the blessings 
 of liberty and freedom owe a great debt of grati- 
 tude to the pioneers of these German forests, for 
 between the Rhine and the Elbe rivers and to the 
 east of Elbe, among these early invaders of the 
 unknown forests, breathed the first spirit of true 
 liberty based on limited and popular government, 
 as now practised by the English-speaking peoples. 
 There it was conceived and had its birth ; there its 
 works and blessings developed a people not of 
 art and eloquence, not of fancy, philosophy, and 
 literature, but of plain and strong morals and 
 
 1 Figgis: Studies of Political Thought from Gerson to Grotius, 
 p. 67. 
 
 2 "To the Teuton individual freedom is the supreme thing. 
 He is induced to sacrifice a part of it to the state in order 
 to keep the rest all the more securely." Bluntschli: The 
 Theory of the State, pp. 41, 42. 
 
His Theory of the State 271 
 
 natural endowments, with a burning desire in 
 their conscience for justice and for humanity 
 a people who were to go forth destined to rule 
 and to plant their principles of freedom and 
 liberty in the hearts and consciences and minds of 
 the human family. " i 
 
 But Luther's Appeal to the German Nobility was 
 " really the first definite announcement that 
 Germans ought to work all together for a united 
 Germany, and was the first practical step taken 
 in the movement to create a German nationality 
 which has made such an advance in our own 
 generation, and whose end is not yet/' 2 
 
 After continued efforts on the part of the estates 
 of the realm to secure effective, uniform imperial 
 legislation and action to protect themselves and 
 their subjects against foreign interference and ag- 
 gression, and against continual internal disturb- 
 ance and petty warfare, as it was felt absolutely 
 necessary to have a stronger civil government 
 for the protection of all rightful interests and 
 the punishment of evil-doers, there was no solu- 
 tion to the problem but for each elector, each 
 
 i Tapp: The Story of Anglo-Saxon Institutions, or the 
 Development of Constitutional Government, pp. 39, 40. 
 
 J Lindsay: Luther and the German Reformation, pp. 107, 108. 
 "Modern states are essentially national states." Bluntschli: 
 The Theory of the State, p. 56. 
 
272 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 prince, each free city, to take measures to accom- 
 plish the necessary reforms. This undoubtedly 
 would have happened, in view of the necessity, 
 though the religious Reformation had not come 
 about; and this increasing authority and power of 
 the separate states of the empire cannot be attrib- 
 uted certainly not entirely to Luther's teach- 
 ing. Luther, personally, would have strengthened 
 the nation and the national power as a unit; 
 but, under the circumstances of the case, the 
 nation, with a peculiarly weak confederacy of 
 the whole, was unequal to the task, and the 
 natural and inevitable result was a stronger, 
 unitary, individual state. Charles V had a golden 
 opportunity, but he failed to see or use it. We 
 have no right, it must be admitted, to demand that 
 Charles V, on the one hand, or that Luther, on 
 the other hand, should see matters of this nature 
 in the light that the developments of centuries 
 have enabled us to see them. Both of them must 
 be judged in the light of their age. 
 
 That Luther changed his views to a limited 
 degree on certain subjects connected with civil 
 government is only to say that he became wiser 
 in the light of new developments and larger ex- 
 perience; but on essential points he is absolutely 
 consistent in all his writings and in all his actions 
 alike. That the years following his activity 
 
His Theory of the State 273 
 
 brought a reaction along some lines is an historical 
 fact for which he is in no way responsible. In 
 his own day, he did not change the map of the 
 political world to any appreciable extent, but he 
 did change the field and the sphere of inalienable 
 individual rights. His sober and vigorous criti- 
 cism of political conditions operated as a mighty 
 impulse in the field of the theory of the state, 
 and his teaching operated in the European field 
 of politics as a new revelation. 1 In the light of 
 the truths and principles asserted by him, it may 
 truly be asserted of him and his age: "The en- 
 during work of the sixteenth century was the 
 modern state. Its legal omnipotence and unity, 
 the destruction of all competing powers, separate 
 or privileged, were assured, and a universal all- 
 embracing system of law became possible." 2 
 
 The date of the beginning of the modern age 
 has been much discussed by various writers 
 viewing the subject from different standpoints. 
 Mr. Bluntschli, for example, dates the modern era 
 from the year 1740. He gives the following 
 reasons for this selection : 
 
 The rise of the Prussian kingdom, Joseph IPs 
 reforms in Austria, the foundation of the United 
 
 1 Gumplowicz: Geschichte der Staatstheorien, pp. 55-57. 
 
 2 Figgis: Stiidies of Political Thought from Gerson to Grotius, 
 P- 133- 
 
 18 
 
274 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 States of North America, the changes of the French 
 Revolution and the Napoleonic empire, the trans- 
 planting of constitutional monarchy to the continent, 
 the attempted introduction of representative democ- 
 racy, the foundation of national states, the gradual 
 removal of religious privileges and disabilities in 
 public law, the separation of church and state or at 
 least the clear demarcation between their spheres, 
 the abolition of feudalism and of all privileged orders, 
 the rise of the conception of national unity, the recog- 
 nition of the freedom of society, all these are the 
 achievements or at least the attempts of the modern 
 state. 1 
 
 Mr. Sidgwick, considering the movement to 
 absolute monarchy, is disposed, from that point 
 of view, to place the beginning of modern history 
 "in the middle of the seventeenth century 
 treating the period of the Renaissance, and the 
 period of the Reformation and the religious strife 
 that followed, as constituting a long transition 
 between mediaeval and modern thought. By the 
 middle of the seventeenth century the treaty of 
 Westphalia (A.D. 1648) has closed the period of 
 religious wars; and then, or not long after, it is 
 clear that in most West European states, monarchy 
 is predominant over elements in the state that 
 have struggled with it. " 2 
 
 1 Bluntschli: The Theory of the State, pp. 52, 53. 
 
 2 Sidgwick: The Development of European Polity, p. 323. 
 
His Theory of the State 275 
 
 Yet another writer, tracing by stages the 
 democratic revolution in the life of the western 
 world, declares that the fourteenth and fifteenth 
 centuries delivered the kings from the domination 
 of the church and the empire; the sixteenth and 
 seventeenth centuries made the kings subordinate 
 to the nobility and the gentry; the eighteenth 
 and nineteenth centuries saw the middle class 
 become dominant; and that there now remains 
 to be accomplished the supremacy of the hand- 
 worker and the wage-earner the common people. l 
 
 These several views, however, consider the 
 beginning of the modern age rather from the 
 standpoint of practical politics. When we review 
 the various political principles enunciated by 
 Luther, we cannot but recognise and acknowledge 
 that the fundamental and inalienable rights of 
 the individual and the unquestioned duties of the 
 state, as held in the modern civilised world, are 
 clearly set forth by him in the first half of the 
 sixteenth century. Known and widely proclaimed 
 as a theologian, a university professor, a preacher, 
 a poet, a hymn writer, a musical composer, a 
 humourist and satirist, a naturalist, the modern 
 world loses sight of his position and influence in 
 the field of politics as a teacher, a prophet, a 
 statesman. 
 
 1 Crapsey: Religion and Politics, p. 283. 
 
276 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 SUMMARY OF LUTHER'S POLITICAL PRINCIPLES 
 
 I. The origin of the state. The state, as 
 natural and necessary to man, is as truly divine 
 in its origin as the creation of man himself; though 
 the nature or the form of government that may 
 be established is a matter of human determination. 
 
 II. The sovereignty of the state. The state 
 possesses exclusive coercive authority. To it, in 
 its sovereignty, belongs all legislative, executive, 
 and judicial jurisdiction in temporal affairs. This 
 jurisdiction extends over every individual within 
 the territory of the state ecclesiastic and heretic 
 included. Status in the church does not affect 
 or determine status in the state. The state does 
 not hold or wield a sword in the interests of the 
 church. 
 
 The national state is the natural unit of civil 
 government. Foreign interference whether eccle- 
 siastical or civil is not to be tolerated. Every 
 individual is in duty bound to obedience to civil 
 authority, legally constituted and exercised, unless 
 it be a command to do that which is explicitly 
 prohibited by the word of God. 
 
 A government may be constitutionally reformed 
 or altered. Illegal or unconstitutional government 
 may be overthrown. Ultra vires commands or 
 acts have no force or validity. Submission is not 
 
His Theory of the State 277 
 
 a duty and self-defence is a right of the individual 
 in case of tyranny. 
 
 III. The objects of the state. The primary 
 object of the state is to protect the good, punish 
 the wicked, and maintain public peace. Civil 
 government is to be conducted in the interests of 
 the governed not of any particular person or 
 persons, any class or classes, but on behalf of 
 all the people. Whatever the form of government 
 as Luther expresses no preference civil author- 
 ity is a sacred trust. To every man is to be given 
 equal consideration and opportunity, under similar 
 conditions. 
 
 IV. The functions of the state. It is the duty 
 of the state to educate its youth not only in the 
 secular field of learning, but also along moral 
 and religious lines. It should care for its poor, 
 protect its subjects against monopolies, extortion, 
 gambling, and public immorality. 
 
 V. The limits of the state. Religious and 
 civil liberty of conscience, speech, and press 
 are inalienable rights belonging alike to every 
 individual, subject only to the equal rights of 
 others, the maintenance of public peace and order, 
 and the sovereign power of the state over the 
 external life, where it touches the lives of others. 
 
 In all these respects, Luther lives yet to-day, 
 
278 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 for these principles are the fundamental ones in 
 force under the enlightened governments of the 
 world at the beginning of the twentieth century. 
 Nor have we yet fully realised his ideals. Perhaps 
 we never shall. 1 Leopold von Ranke regarded 
 the Reformation as a great political force working 
 political transformations not yet ended. The best 
 thought and the highest political leadership of the 
 age is calling now, not for more, but better govern- 
 ment, not wealth for the favoured few, not govern- 
 ment in the interests of a certain class or classes, 
 but on behalf of the masses and of the people as a 
 whole. The government itself, in Luther's view, 
 may be by prince or people, but it must be govern- 
 ment for the people. To this end it is a trust 
 from above. 
 
 In the light of his attitude on all these political 
 questions, we must recognise in Luther not merely 
 a prophet, or a forerunner, but the founder of 
 the modern theory of the state ; not that he secular- 
 ised it, but he declared it to be absolutely separate 
 and distinct from the church and the sole possessor 
 of coercive authority and sovereign power; and 
 
 i "The idea or ideal of the state presents a picture, in the 
 splendour of imaginary perfection, of the state as not yet 
 realised, but to be striven for." Bluntschli: The Theory 
 of the State t p. 15. This may be truly said of Luther's 
 Staatsidee. 
 
His Theory of the State 279 
 
 with this theory of the state, he declares the in- 
 alienable liberty of the mind of man, of the 
 human soul, of the individual conscience. "The 
 dearest goods of our estate,'* says Dr. Hedge, 
 "civil independence, spiritual emancipation, indi- 
 vidual scope, the large room, the unbound thought, 
 the free pen, whatever is most characteristic of 
 this New England of our inheritance we owe to 
 the Saxon reformer. . . . Modern civilisation, lib- 
 erty, science, social progress, attest the world-wide 
 scope of the protestant reform, whose principles 
 are independent thought, freedom from ecclesi- 
 astical thrall, defiance of consecrated wrong." 1 
 
 Luther was a German, but he is claimed to-day 
 by all lands and all civilisations as an epoch- 
 maker, 2 as a beacon light of history, for he is the 
 
 1 Hedge: Commemorative Discourse, Massachusetts His- 
 torical Society, 1883, pp. 17, 39. 
 
 2 "The acknowledgment of the political rights of the middle 
 classes may ... be said to date from the Reformation only." 
 Wace and Buchheim: Luther's Primary Works, p. 463. 
 
 "Luther created an epoch in the world's history. " Mac- 
 kinnon: A History of Modern Liberty, ii., 108. 
 
 Even D6llinger admits that Luther "has stamped the 
 imperishable seal of his soul alike upon the German language 
 and the German mind: even those Germans, who abhor him 
 most as the powerful heretic and the seducer of the nation, 
 cannot escape ; they must discourse with his words, they must 
 think with his thoughts. " Lindsay: Luther and the German 
 Reformation, p. 266, 
 
280 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 founder of modern liberty; his "service to mankind 
 was nothing less than the successful declaration 
 of individual freedom of conscience from the 
 dictates of any human authority." 1 
 
 4 'It is not incorrect to say that Luther has been 
 the restorer of liberty in modern times," says a 
 Roman Catholic historian. 2 "If he denied it in 
 theory, he established it in practice. If he did 
 not create, he at least courageously affixed his 
 signature to that great revolution, which rendered 
 the right of examination lawful in Europe. And 
 if we exercise in all its plenitude at this day this 
 first and highest privilege of human intelligence, 
 it is to him we are mostly indebted for it; nor 
 can we think, speak, or write, without being made 
 conscious at every step of the immense benefit 
 of this intellectual enfranchisement. To whom 
 do I owe the power of publishing what I am even 
 now inditing, except to the liberator of modern 
 thought?" 
 
 The Reformed historian, D'Aubigne, declares: 
 "Luther was the first to proclaim the great 
 principles of humanity and religious liberty. He 
 was far beyond his own age, and even beyond many 
 of the reformers, in toleration." 
 
 The American historian Bancroft asserts: 
 
 1 Muzzey: Spiritual Heroes, p. 302. 
 
 2 Michelet : The Life of Martin Luther, p. xii. 
 
His Theory of the State 281 
 
 ''Luther repelled the use of violence in religion; 
 he protested against propagating reforms by 
 persecution, and with a wise moderation he 
 maintained the sublime doctrine of freedom of 
 
 conscience." 
 
 The secretary to the Catholic Union of Great 
 Britain, the Roman Catholic historian, Lilly, 
 assures us that it is not only in the distinctly 
 religious domain that Luther's teaching has been 
 so influential and so far-reaching. He declares 
 that the French Revolutionists were debtors to 
 Luther for that doctrine of the sovereignty of the 
 individual which is the very foundation of Rous- 
 seau's Control Social, and of The Declaration of 
 the Rights of Man and the Citizen, formulated by 
 Rousseau's disciples. 1 
 
 The priceless blessings of liberty and the rights 
 of conscience recognised, enjoyed, and guaranteed 
 in our own great republic, and working like leaven 
 among all peoples who do not enjoy them, are, 
 directly and indirectly, the result of the truths and 
 principles so clearly and so forcibly proclaimed by 
 Martin Luther nearly four hundred years ago. 2 
 
 Lilly: Renaissance Types, p. 299. 
 
 a Charles Dudley Warner declares: "The United States, 
 Great Britain and its world-encircling colonies, Holland and 
 its dependencies, the German empire, are to-day what they 
 are largely because of the life of Martin Luther." Scherer: 
 Four Princes, p. 242. 
 
APPENDIX 
 ([BIBLIOGRAPHY OF WORKS CONSULTED AND CITED 
 
 ACTON, LORD JOHN EDWARD EMERICH: Lectures on Modern 
 
 History, 1906. 
 AQUINAS, THOMAS: Opuscula contra err ores Gracorum. 
 
 De Regimine Principum. 
 
 Summa contra Gentiles. 
 
 Summa Theologia. 
 
 ARISTOTLE: Politics. Translation by Benjamin Jowett, 1905. 
 AUGSBURG CONFESSION. 
 AUGUSTINE, ST.: Confessiones. 
 
 De Civitate Dei. 
 
 Sermons in Ante-Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. 
 AUSTIN, JOHN: Lectures on Jurisprudence, or the Philosophy 
 
 of Positive Law. Without date. Edited by Robert 
 
 Campbell. 
 BEARD, CHARLES: The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century 
 
 in its Relation to Modern Thought and Knowledge. 7 In 
 
 Hibbert Lectures, ^$Q," 
 BERINGTON, JOSEPH: The History of the Reign of Henry the 
 
 Second, and of Richard and John, his Sons; with the 
 
 Events of the Period from 1154 to 1216. 2 vols., 1790. 
 BLACKIE, JOHN STUART: What does History Teach? 1886. 
 BLUNTSCHLI, J. K.: The Theory of the State. Authorised 
 
 English Translation from the sixth German edition, 1885. 
 
 Geschichte der neueren Statswissenschaft, allgemeines 
 
 Statsrecht und Politik: seit dem 16 Jahrhundert bis zur 
 
 Gegenwart. Dritte Auflage (1881). 
 
 Deutsches_Staatsworterbuch. 
 283 
 
284 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 BODIN: De la Republique. 
 
 BRYAN, WILLIAM JENNINGS. Editor in Chief of The World's 
 Famous Orations, 10 vols f ^ Copyright 1906. 
 
 BRYCE, JAMES: The Holy Roman Empire, 1904. 
 Studies in History and Jurisprudence, 1901. 
 
 BULLOWA, FERDINAND EZRA M.: The History of the Theory 
 of Sovereignty, 1895. 
 
 BURGESS, JOHN W.: Political Science and Comparative Con- 
 stitutional Law. 2 vols., 1890. 
 
 CASE, NELSON: European Constitutional History; or the 
 Origin and Development of the Governments of Modern 
 Europe (copyright, 1902). 
 
 CHAMBERLAIN, L. T.: The State, its Nature, Origin, and Func- 
 tions, 1898. 
 
 CICERO: De Republica. 
 
 COULANGES, FUSTEL DE: The Ancient City; a Study of the 
 Religion, Laws, and Institutions of Greece and Rome. 
 Translated by Willard Small, 1874. 
 
 CRAPSEY, ALGERNON SIDNEY: Religion and Politics, 1905. 
 
 CURTEIS, G. H.: The Three Conflicting Theories of Church 
 and State. In Contemporary Review, February, 1878, 
 vol. xxxi. 
 
 DANTE: Monarchia. 
 
 D'AUBIGNE, J. H. MERLE: History of the Reformation of 
 the Sixteenth Century. Translation by H. White (with- 
 out date). 5 vols. 
 
 DODD, WALTER FAIRLEIGH: Modern Constitutions. 2 vols., 
 1909. 
 
 DUFF, ROBERT A.: Spinoza's Political and Ethical Philosophy, 
 1903. 
 
 DUNNING, WILLIAM ARCHIBALD: A History of Political 
 Theories, Ancient and Medieval, 1902. 
 A History of Political Theories from Luther to Montes- 
 quieu, 1905. 
 
 EUSEBIUS: Ecclesiastical History. 
 
 FIGGIS, JOHN NEVILLE: Studies of Political Thought from 
 Gerson to Grotius, 1414-1625. 1907. 
 
Appendix 285 
 
 FISHER, GEORGE PARK: The Reformation, 1906. 
 
 FISKE, JOHN: Civil Government in the United States Consid- 
 ered with Some Reference to its Origins, 1890. 
 
 FROUDE, JAMES ANTHONY: Luther, a short Biography, 1884. 
 
 GEFFCKEN, HEINRICH: Church and State; their Relations 
 Historically Developed. Translated by Edward Fair- 
 fax Taylor. 2 vols., 1877. 
 
 GIERKE, OTTO: Political Theories of the Middle Age. 
 Translated by F. W. Maitland, 1900. 
 
 GOETHE: Gotz von Berlichingen mit der eisernen Hand. 
 
 GREEN, JOHN RICHARD: A Short History of the English People. 
 4 vols., 1901. 
 
 GREEN, THOMAS HILL: Lectures on the Principles of Political 
 Obligation, 1895. 
 
 GUMPLOWICZ, LUDWIG: Geschichte der Staatstheorien, 1905. 
 
 HALL AM: Middle Ages. 
 
 HARNACK, ADOLPH: History of Dogma. Translation pub- 
 lished by Williams and Norgate, London, 1899. 
 
 HAY, CHARLES E.: Luther the Reformer (copyright 1898). 
 
 HEDGE, FREDERIC H.: Commemorative Discourse, Massa- 
 chusetts Historical Society. The Commemoration of the 
 4Ooth Anniversary of the Birth of Martin Luther, 
 November 10, 1883. 
 
 HEEREN, A. H. L.: Historical Treatises: the Political Conse- 
 quences of the Reformation; the Rise, Progress, and Prac- 
 tical Influence of Political Theories; the Rise and Growth 
 of the Continental Interests of Great Britain, 1836. 
 
 HENDERSON, ERNEST FLAGG: Select Historical Documents of 
 the Middle Ages, 1903. 
 
 HENRY, PAUL: The Life and Times of John Calvin the Great 
 Reformer. Translated by Henry Stebbing. 2 vols., 1849. 
 
 HOFFMAN, FRANK SARGENT: The Sphere of the State; or, the 
 People as a Body-Politic, 1894. 
 
 HOOKER, RICHARD: Ecclesiastical Polity, 1617. 
 
 HUMBOLDT, WILHELM VON: Sphere and Duties of Government. 
 Translated by Joseph Coulthard, Jr., 1854. 
 
 HUXLEY: Method and Results. 
 
286 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 INNES, A. TAYLOR: Church and State. Second edition 
 (without date). 
 
 JANSSEN, JOHANNES: History of the German People at the 
 Close of the Middle Ages. Second English (Herder) 
 edition, revised, 1905. 12 vols. 
 
 JELLINEK, GEORG: The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of 
 Citizens. Translated by Max Farrand, 1901. 
 
 JENKS, EDWARD: Law and Politics in the Middle Ages, 1898. 
 A History of Politics, 1900. 
 
 KANT, IMMANUEL: Rechtslehre. Principles of Politics, trans- 
 lated by William Hastie, 1891. 
 
 KELLY, EDMOND: Evolution and Effort; and their Relation to 
 Religion and Politics, 1898. 
 
 KOESTLIN, JULIUS: Life of Martin Luther. 2 vols. 
 
 LECKY, W. E. H.: History of the Rise and Influence of the 
 
 ki Spirit of Rationalism in Europe. 2 vols. Second edi- 
 tion, 1865. 
 
 LEWIS, CHARLTON T.: A History of Germany from the Earliest 
 Times; founded on Dr. David Muller's History of the 
 German People. (Copyright, 1874 and 1902.) 
 
 LILLY, W. S. : Renaissance Types, 1901. 
 
 LINDSAY, THOMAS M.: Luther and the German Reformation, 
 1900. 
 A History of the Reformation. 2 vols., 1906. 
 
 LOCKE, JOHN: Two Treatises on Civil Government, 1903. 
 
 LUTHER, MARTIN: D. Martin Luther's Werke. Kritische 
 Gesammtausgabe. Hermann Bohlau, Weimar, 1883- 
 J 9 33 volumes now out. Not yet complete. As 
 far as practicable, references have been made to this 
 critical edition. 
 
 Dr. Martin Luther's Sdmmtliche Schriften, hrsg. von 
 Dr. Joh. Georg Walch. Concordia Publishing House, 
 St. Louis, Mo., 1881-19 . 24 volumes now out. 
 Luther's Primary Works. Wace and Buchheim, 1896. 
 The Letters of Martin Luther: Selected and Translated 
 by Margaret A. Currie, 1908. 
 Brief e, ed. De Wette. 6 Bande, Berlin, 1825. 
 
Appendix 287 
 
 Luther on Education, by F. V. N. Painter (copyright, 
 
 1889). 
 MACAULAY, THOMAS BABINGTON: Critical and Miscellaneous 
 
 Essays. 5 vols., 1842. 
 MACHIAVELLI: The Prince. 
 MACKINNON, JAMES: A History of Modern Liberty. 2 vols,, 
 
 1906. 
 MAINE, HENRY SUMNER: Ancient Law. Third American, 
 
 from fifth London edition of 1873. 
 MARSILIUS OF PADUA: Defensor Pads. 
 M'KECHNIE, WILLIAM SHARP: The State and the Individual, 
 
 1896. 
 MERRIAM, C. E., Jr.: History of the Theory of Sovereignty 
 
 since Rousseau, 1900. 
 MICHELET, M.: The Life of Martin Luther, gathered from his 
 
 own writings. Translated by G. H. Smith, 1846. 
 Monumenta Germanics Historica. 
 MORLEY, JOHN: Rousseau. 2 vols., 1873. 
 MUZZEY, DAVID SAVILLE: Spiritual Heroes; a Study of Some 
 
 of the World's Prophets, 1902. 
 NICHOLAS OF CUSA: De Concordantia Catholica. 
 NUELSEN, JOHN Louis: Luther the Leader, 1906. 
 PAULSEN, FRIEDRICH: The German Universities; their Character 
 
 and Historical Development. Authorised translation by 
 
 Edward Delavan Perry, 1895. 
 PETERMAN, ALEXANDER L.: Elements of Civil Government 
 
 (copyright, 1891). 
 POLLOCK, SIR FREDERICK: An Introduction to the History 
 
 of the Science of Politics, 1902. 
 POLYBIUS: Histories. Translated by Evelyn S. Schuck- 
 
 burgh, 2 vols., 1889. 
 
 POOLE, REGINALD LANE: Illustrations of the History of Medie- 
 val Thought in the Departments of Theology and Ecclesias- 
 tical Politics, 1884. 
 
 PRALL, WILLIAM: The State and the Church, 1900. 
 PRESCOTT, WILLIAM H.: The History of the Reign of the 
 
 Emperor Charles V., by William Robertson, D.D., with 
 
288 Political Theories of Martin Luther 
 
 an Account of the Emperor's Life after his Abdication 
 
 by William H. Prescott. 3 vols., 1857. 
 RANEE, LEOPOLD: History of the Reformation in Germany. 
 
 Second edition, translated by Sarah Austin, 1845. 
 RAUMER, FRIEDRICH VON: Ueber die geschichtliche Entwicke- 
 
 lung der Begriffe von Recht, Staat und Politik, 1832. 
 RENAN, ERNEST: Les Apotres. 
 RITCHIE: Principles of State Interference. 
 ROBINSON, JAMES HARVEY: Translations and Reprints from 
 
 the Original Sources of European History, published by 
 
 the University of Pennsylvania. Vol. iii., No. 6 (1901;. 
 ROUSSEAU: Contrat Social. 
 RUSSELL, JAMES E.: German Higher Schools; the History, 
 
 Organization, and Methods of Secondary Education in 
 
 Germany, 1899. 
 SCHERER, JAMES A. B.: Four Princes, or the Growth of a 
 
 Kingdom, 1903. 
 SCHERGER, GEORGE L.: The Evolution of Modern Liberty, 
 
 1904. 
 
 SCHILLER: Das Eleusische Fest. 
 SCHOENFELD, HERMANN: German Historical Prose, 1895. 
 
 Kaiserwahl Karl's V (1519} von Leopold von Ranke 
 
 (copyright, 1899). 
 
 Women of the Teutonic Nations, 1907 (volume viii., in the 
 
 series Woman in all Ages and in all Countries). 
 SHELDON, HENRY C.: History of Christian Doctrine, Fourth 
 
 edition (copyright, 1906). 
 SIDGWICK, HENRY: Elements of Politics, 1897. 
 
 The Development of European Polity, 1903. 
 STANLEY, ARTHUR PENRHYN: Essays Chiefly on Questions 
 
 of Church and State from 1850 to 1870. (1870.) 
 STRAUS, OSCAR S. : The Origin of Republican Form of Govern- 
 ment in the United States of America, 1901. 
 STUBBS, WILLIAM: The Constitutional History of England; 
 
 in its Origin and Development. 3 vols., 1878. 
 SULLIVAN, JAMES: The Antecedents of the Declaration of 
 
 Independence. In the Annual Report of the American 
 
Appendix 289 
 
 Historical Association for the year 1902, vol. i., pp. 
 
 67-81. 
 TAPP, SIDNEY C.: The Story of Anglo-Saxon Institutions; 
 
 or the Development of Constitutional Government, 1904. 
 TAYLOR, BAYARD: The History of Germany from the Earliest 
 
 Times to the Present Day, 1894. 
 TAYLOR, THOMAS WARDLAW, JR.: The Individual and the 
 
 State, 1895. 
 
 THATCHER, OLIVER J.: The Ideas that have Influenced Civili- 
 zation; in the Original Documents. 10 vols. (copyright, 
 
 1901). 
 TOLSTOI, LEO: Church and State. Translated by Victor 
 
 Yarros, 1891. 
 TURNER, SAMUEL EPES: A Sketch of the Germanic Constitution 
 
 from Early Times to the Dissolution of the Empire, 1888. 
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CONSTITUTION. 
 WARNER, CHARLES DUDLEY: Article on Luther, in Library 
 
 of the World's Best Literature. 
 WATT, W. A.: Outline of Legal Philosophy. 
 WILLIAM OF OCKHAM: Octo Qucestiones. 
 
 Dialogus. 
 WILLOUGHBY, WESTEL WOODBURY: An Examination of the 
 
 Nature of the State, 1896. 
 
 The Political Theories of the Ancient World, 1903. 
 WILSON, WOODROW: The State, 1901. 
 WOOLSEY, THEODORE D.: Political Science, or the State. 
 
 2 vols., 1893. 
 
INDEX 
 
 Adams, John, Letter to John 
 
 Taylor, 188 
 Alvarius Pelagius, 23 
 Aquinas, Thomas, 18, 19, 66, 
 
 171, 205 
 
 Aristotle, I, 3, 64, 168, 185 
 Augustine, 13, 65 
 Austin, 87 
 
 B 
 
 Benedictus Levita, 15 
 Blackstone, 68, 93 
 Bodin, 86, 91, 186 
 Burke, 174 
 
 Carlyle, 262 
 Charlemagne, 9-11 
 Charles IV, 36 
 Charles V, 57 et seq., 129 
 Cicero, 65 
 
 Clericis Laicos, Bull, 20, 21 
 Constantine, 5-8, 15 
 Contract Theories of the 
 State, 67-70 
 
 D 
 
 Dante, 19, 20, 169 
 
 De Lolme, 90 
 
 Divine Right of Kings, 70-73 
 
 Donation of Constantine, 15 
 
 E 
 
 Economic Conditions in Ger- 
 many in Luther's Day, 48- 
 
 50 
 
 Education, 47, 48, 192 et seq. 
 Erasmus, 194 
 
 Finance and Trade, 205-220 
 Force Theory of the Origin of 
 
 the State, 69 
 Froude, 263, 264, 269 
 
 Galerius, 5 
 
 Gelasius, 8 
 
 Gibbon, 5 
 
 Golden Bull, 36 
 
 Governmental Contract The- 
 ory of the Origin of the 
 State, 68, 69 
 
 Guizot, 9 
 
 H 
 
 Hegel, 174 
 
 Henry II of England, 16 
 Henry IV, Emperor, 14 
 Hobbes, 67, 69 
 Hooker, 66, 67 
 Humboldt, Wilhelm von, 173, 
 260, 261 
 
 291 
 
292 
 
 Index 
 
 Huss, John, 30 
 Huxley, 173 
 
 I 
 
 Industrial Guilds, 50, 51 
 Inter C&tera Divines , 26 
 Ireland, 16, 17 
 Isidore, Pseudo-decretals of, 
 
 12, 15 
 
 Jellinek, 94 
 
 John, King of England, 17 
 
 John of Salisbury, 16 
 
 Kant, 62, 182 
 
 Lactantius, 7 
 
 Licet Juris, 24 
 
 Licinius, 5, 6 
 
 Locke, 68, 173 
 
 Louis, the Bavarian, 24 
 
 Luther, 59 et seq.; views on 
 the Nature, Necessity, and 
 Origin of the State, 73-81, 
 83; on the Sovereignty of 
 the State, viewed inter- 
 nally, 95-106; on the Sov- 
 ereignty of the State, view- 
 ed externally, 107-134; on 
 the Right of Reform, 138- 
 162; on the Objects of the 
 State, 175-182, 184; on 
 the Functions of the State 
 in general, 190-231; on 
 Education, 195-201, 203, 
 204; on Finance and Trade, 
 205-220; on Marriage, 
 Morality, and Prostitution, 
 220-222; on the Problem of 
 
 Pauperism, 222-227; n 
 Sumptuary Laws, 228-230; 
 on the Limits of the State, 
 234-257; Summary of Lu- 
 ther's Political Theories, 
 276 et seq. 
 
 M 
 
 Macaulay, 259 
 Machiavelli, 32, 128 
 Maine, Sir Henry, 66 
 Manegold von Lautenbach, 
 
 70, 71 
 Marriage and Morality, 220- 
 
 222 
 
 Marsilius of Padua, 26, 170 
 Maximilian, 40, 43-46 
 Melanchthon, 172 
 Milan, Edict of, 6 
 Mill, John Stuart, 172 
 Monopolies, 52 
 Montesquieu, 187 
 Morley, on the Origin of the 
 State, 81, 82 
 
 N 
 
 Neander, 6 
 
 Nicholas of Cusa 30, 65 
 
 Pastor jEternus, 26 
 Patriarchal Theory of the 
 
 State, 66 
 Pauperism, the Problem of, 
 
 222-227 
 
 Philip of France, 22 
 Pippin, 9 
 
 Pollock, Sir Frederick, 92 
 Polybius, 65 
 Popes: 
 
 Eugene II, 12 
 
 Gregory VII, 14, 70 
 
 Adrian IV, 16 
 
Index 
 
 293 
 
 Po pes Continued 
 
 Innocent IV, 18 
 
 Boniface VIII, 20-22 
 
 John XXII, 23 
 
 Alexander VI, 26 
 
 Leo X, 26 
 Prierio, Sylvester Mazzolini 
 
 de, 108 
 
 R 
 
 Reuchlin, 194 
 
 Roman Code introduced into 
 
 Germany, 53-57 
 Roman Theory of the State, 4 
 Rousseau, 69, 91 
 
 Social Contract Theory of 
 the Origin of the State, 66- 
 69 
 
 Spencer, Herbert, 173 
 
 Spinoza, 68, 99, 105 
 
 Sumptuary Laws, 228-231 
 
 Tertullian, 7 
 
 Toleration, Constantine's 
 
 Edict of, 7 
 Trade, Finance and, 205-220 
 
 U 
 
 Unam Sanctam, Bull, 22 
 Usury, 207 
 
 W 
 
 Washington, George, on the 
 Nature of the State, 83 ; on 
 the Right of Reform, 135; 
 on the Functions of the 
 State, 187; on the Limits of 
 the State, 259 
 
 Watt, 62 
 
 William of Ockham, 29, 173 
 
 Wy cliff e, 30 
 
RETURN CIRCULATION DEPARTMENT 
 TO*- 202 Main Library 
 
 LOAN PERIOD 1 
 HOME USE 
 
 2 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 6 
 
 ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS 
 
 RENEWALS: CALL (415) 642-3405 
 
 DUE AS STAMPED BELOW 
 
 MAROs.qqn 
 
 
 
 MJTO DISC FEB 1 1 
 
 i : n 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY 
 
 FORM NO. DD6, 60m, 1 783 BERKELEY, CA 94720 
 
 $ 
 
U.C. BERKELEY LIBRARIES 06 1 1 
 
 CDDSEb3S73 
 
 w 
 
 rfClM-wc 
 
 >94431 
 
 .' 
 
 ..;. ^fj..